5 ms·

I find it concerning that a judge, being presented with a textual description of four GPS coordinates would sign off on a warrant without simply asking... "okay

I find it concerning that a judge, being presented with a textual description of four GPS coordinates would sign off on a warrant without simply asking... "okay, can you show me that on a map then?"

candiodari 8y ago
In the criminal justice system a judge is asked, in 15 minutes average per case, to see if there is any reason at all to suspect this person, nothing more. A judge would sign off given just the list of coordinates, and legally, they'd be correct in doing so.
- jamiethompson 8y ago
  That's the difference though. This isn't a warrant against a person. It's a warrant against "anyone who google recorded as being in an area"
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    Police search areas around crimes, people known to be in those locations (log books, identifications on surveillance), and warrants against locations searching for evidence. Warrants don't need to be against a person.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      They don't typically search those areas retroactively. And there is a qualitative and scary difference between a few cops walking around versus processing every single person that drives by on a major road for tens of hours.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      > Police search areas around crimes That is true, but these areas usually do not involve the private homes of people. Police can ask to look around, but if the owner of the home declines, then police have to come back with a search warrant and afaik that warrant needs to be specific to that property. This is the digital equivalent of that but applied on a whole geographical area, basically a "digital bulk search warrant". Because I doubt these warrants will surface to the judge how many people will be affected, in a very invasive way. When you factor in much of our modern lives are saved on servers of Google or Apple, then this is actually a much worse invasion of privacy than just having a couple of unis take a quick look through your home physically. This is the equivalent of them sitting down in front of your phone/computer and being able to spend hours upon hours on browsing through your private data.
  - jononor 8y ago
    It should be required to identify the size of the area affects. Primarily in the estimated number of people that will be scanned. But also in kilometer radius and duration of time.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      It should simply not be allowed you mean.
  - astura 8y ago
    ...so? It would be like if the warrant was for the log book of who checked into a hotel during a certian timeframe.
    - jamiethompson 8y ago
      Not really no. That would be clear. This would be like if the warrant was for everyone who checked into "the hotel or hotels within a polygon defined by these coordinates"
      - msvbvm60 8y ago
        If the exact coordinates are provided as part of the request, how is that not clear?
      - candiodari 8y ago
        Plus you are perfectly at liberty to lie or not sign the hotel logbook. If you pay cash you cannot easily be traced.
      - jcranberry 8y ago
        That sounds extremely clear.
FartyMcFarter 8y ago
Do we know that the judge didn't simply plug the coordinates into some online mapping service to find out? It's not that hard...
- jamiethompson 8y ago
  It's alluded to in the article that judges aren't aware of the size of the geofences they're asked to sign off on, yeah.
usrusr 8y ago
Fine grained judge approval is the lowest form of privacy theatre. It will always degenerate into a worthless rubberstamping process. It's totally invisible, unchallenged and there is absolutely zero possible upside for the judge to ever deny an application. Everybody who agrees that privacy, invasive measures are both sometimes necessary and something that needs to be restricted should try to come up with something better.

I find it concerning that a judge, being presented with a textual description of four GPS coordinates would sign off on a warrant without simply asking... "okay, can you show me that on a map then?"

candiodari 8y ago

In the criminal justice system a judge is asked, in 15 minutes average per case, to see if there is any reason at all to suspect this person, nothing more. A judge would sign off given just the list of coordinates, and legally, they'd be correct in doing so.

jamiethompson 8y ago
That's the difference though. This isn't a warrant against a person. It's a warrant against "anyone who google recorded as being in an area"
- VectorLock 8y ago
  Police search areas around crimes, people known to be in those locations (log books, identifications on surveillance), and warrants against locations searching for evidence. Warrants don't need to be against a person.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    They don't typically search those areas retroactively. And there is a qualitative and scary difference between a few cops walking around versus processing every single person that drives by on a major road for tens of hours.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    > Police search areas around crimes That is true, but these areas usually do not involve the private homes of people. Police can ask to look around, but if the owner of the home declines, then police have to come back with a search warrant and afaik that warrant needs to be specific to that property. This is the digital equivalent of that but applied on a whole geographical area, basically a "digital bulk search warrant". Because I doubt these warrants will surface to the judge how many people will be affected, in a very invasive way. When you factor in much of our modern lives are saved on servers of Google or Apple, then this is actually a much worse invasion of privacy than just having a couple of unis take a quick look through your home physically. This is the equivalent of them sitting down in front of your phone/computer and being able to spend hours upon hours on browsing through your private data.
- jononor 8y ago
  It should be required to identify the size of the area affects. Primarily in the estimated number of people that will be scanned. But also in kilometer radius and duration of time.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    It should simply not be allowed you mean.
- astura 8y ago
  ...so? It would be like if the warrant was for the log book of who checked into a hotel during a certian timeframe.
  - jamiethompson 8y ago
    Not really no. That would be clear. This would be like if the warrant was for everyone who checked into "the hotel or hotels within a polygon defined by these coordinates"
    - msvbvm60 8y ago
      If the exact coordinates are provided as part of the request, how is that not clear?
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Plus you are perfectly at liberty to lie or not sign the hotel logbook. If you pay cash you cannot easily be traced.
    - jcranberry 8y ago
      That sounds extremely clear.

FartyMcFarter 8y ago

Do we know that the judge didn't simply plug the coordinates into some online mapping service to find out? It's not that hard...

jamiethompson 8y ago
It's alluded to in the article that judges aren't aware of the size of the geofences they're asked to sign off on, yeah.

usrusr 8y ago

Fine grained judge approval is the lowest form of privacy theatre. It will always degenerate into a worthless rubberstamping process. It's totally invisible, unchallenged and there is absolutely zero possible upside for the judge to ever deny an application. Everybody who agrees that privacy, invasive measures are both sometimes necessary and something that needs to be restricted should try to come up with something better.