Those are very wide search requests. There is no reason to think that more specific geofence requests would also be thrown out is there?
There is another question here too: with more complex analysis like this, what is a good definition of a geofence? A 45min window around a busy intersection might catch a few 1000 people. But would the same geofence be OK if it was combines: who from intersection A in window1 was also at intersection B in window2? Presumably that would be OK if the number of people caught was lower compared to the number of criminals sought, and it would be much lower.
Finally, people should note that that data legally belongs to the company not the user. If Google agreed to cooperate (as mobile phone companies do) it would be entirely legal for all the data (and more) to be turned over and used, no questions asked.
That is far from a settled question. Third Party Doctrine has a built in escape hatch test of how destructive and pervasive surveillance method is to the public interest in not being subject to unreasonable searches. This is the fundamental territory of that escape hatch. It doesn't matter if it's "private". If it is too gratuitously invasive, it should not even be on the table.
In the article they state that they did try to reduce the window size as well but the court deemed it still too large. It’s possible that there is some size small enough to justify though.
The real problem here is that most of these rulings are sealed with no defendant. So it’s great that we had a judge looking out for the public here, but it is apparently far from the norm.
How is this any different than having the police go from business to business asking for security camera footage, analyzing the footage over a time period, connecting faces to names, and then going out and questioning those people? Both seem to be ways of tracking who is in an area at a given time, but geofencing is a significantly more efficient method.
Security cameras can't see through walls to people with a reasonable expectation of privacy. A crime being committed down the street doesn't give the government the right to my webcam.
I would argue that the geofencing method collects a far greater number of people in the initial sweep, and has way more potential for misuse or straight out abuse. IMO, there are too many examples of law enforcement abusing their power, even lying and fabricating evidence, for the sake of arresting somebody, so they can close a case? I don't think they can be trusted with sweeping technologies like arbitrary geofence warrants or even (flawed) facial recognition.
I think in certain extreme cases I would be ok with geofence warrants, but as the article mentions they are being used with increasing regularity.
It's not a logical contradiction for both sides to be right.
And it might even be factually correct from both sides given a reasonable interpretation of "fact".
What will remain is your evaluation about which type of law breaking is more dangerous to the fabric of society. And that seems to be the fault line between left and right.
Personally I think government and cops breaking the law is corrosive in a unique way. This is a fairly broadly accepted view as well - it's why crimes by law enforcement and the judiciary have often been treated more harshly. It's a huge red flag when they are treated more leniently as it speaks of corruption that runs deep in the body politic.
> it's why crimes by law enforcement and the judiciary have often been treated more harshly
That is not my understanding. I think if you look at the numbers you will see lower prosecution rates and lighter sentences for crimes committed by police.
There are people who think "law and order" means controlling individuals, and there are people who think "law and order" means enforcing laws that apply to government (and sometimes business).
Are you referring to the outside agitators from Vancouver, Washington that drive through downtown shooting random citizens with paintball guns and bear spray?
Or the outside agitators in the DHS, Border Patrol?
Law enforcement will always do unconstitutional actions until a court cracks down on it. They used to attach tracking devices to cars without a warrant. There’s no punishment to push limits and defendants lack the resources to challenge the constitutionality of the action. Holding police chief financially liable would probably change police behavior. Right now defendants can only sue the city/police department and the tax payers foot the bill. Unconstitutional actions piercing qualified immunity seems like reasonable balance.
There is another question here too: with more complex analysis like this, what is a good definition of a geofence? A 45min window around a busy intersection might catch a few 1000 people. But would the same geofence be OK if it was combines: who from intersection A in window1 was also at intersection B in window2? Presumably that would be OK if the number of people caught was lower compared to the number of criminals sought, and it would be much lower.
Finally, people should note that that data legally belongs to the company not the user. If Google agreed to cooperate (as mobile phone companies do) it would be entirely legal for all the data (and more) to be turned over and used, no questions asked.