4 ms·

Geofence Warrants and Reverse Keyword Warrants Are Invasive

42 points by perihelions 3y ago

blitzar 3y ago
> Under the Fourth Amendment Is the EFF aware that 95.75% of the population of the planet does not live under the Amendments of the Constitution of the USA? Are Geofence Warrants and Reverse Keyword Warrants Invasive? Yes. Is the reason because in 1789 someone in the US didnt like something. No.
- mindofbeholder 3y ago
  Are you aware that the EFF operates out of the USA? Are you aware that the piece of legislation in question is proposed New York State law which is based in the USA? If you're going to fight US legislation, you have to use the law to do it and that includes the US Constitution and it's amendments...
- phyllistine 3y ago
  >Google Takes a Stand Against Keyword Search Warrants—in Brazil >Google Fails to Challenge Keyword Search Warrants in the U.S. Your distinction is already acknowledged in the second[1] article linked by the original article, that Google is being uniquely worse in America, where the Fourth Amendment does actually apply. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/google-fights-dragnet-warrant-users-search-histories-overseas-while-continuing https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/google-fights-dragnet-...
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > Is the EFF aware that 95.75% of the population of the planet does not live under the Amendments of the Constitution of the USA? And yet, that 95.75% has a net drain (especially among high earners and top of their fields professional) to the US, meaning that people all over the world seek and actively desire to be protected and live under the Constitution more than their countries' laws.
avidiax 3y ago
It's not enough to make such warrants illegal. It must also be illegal for companies to sell this information to the government, or ideally to even store this data outside of devices controlled by the end user.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Geofence warrants and reverse keyword searches are invasive, but that is a reason to limit their scope, not to ban them It is not unreasonable to ask who (whose mobile phones) were in an area during a riot. It is unreasonable to ask for the movements of everyone in a city for 6 months before hand. Some places (lawyers offices, health facilities etc) are particularly sensitive and warrants for them should be issued only in extreme cases (just like how it is much harder to get a warrant for a lawyers office). None of this is different from any other warrant: asking for a search warrant for a house is one thing, asking for one for every house on a street is another. I would support significant tightening of the US warrant system (judges are all too willing to blindly grant warrants with no actual thought or concern for citizens rights). But this is about balancing right, not one absolute right trumping another.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- haswell 3y ago
  > It is not unreasonable to ask who (whose mobile phones) were in an area during a riot Would you expand on why you find this reasonable? As a city dweller, I often don’t have much choice about the routes that I take, and don’t find it reasonable that someone happening past an event of interest automatically places them under suspicion. Don’t get me wrong; I understand why LEO finds this to be valuable, but I don’t see how this translates to being reasonable. > But this is about balancing right, not one absolute right trumping another. To me, “balancing” looks more like requiring a sufficiently high bar to get clearance to track individuals, and the availability of a much more invasive mechanism (geofences) does not mean that a balanced solution must include it. I think there’s an analogy in the militarization of police departments. Some would argue this is “balancing” power between police and gangs, but there are far stronger arguments that it’s an inappropriate and dangerous solution to begin with.
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    100%, I think the reasonable version of this is asking the carrier if a SPECIFIC device was in an area at a certain time. Meaning the police would have to collect the device IDs of all of those suspects and then could use cell phone data to confirm/refute an alibi

42 points by perihelions 3y ago

> Under the Fourth Amendment Is the EFF aware that 95.75% of the population of the planet does not live under the Amendments of the Constitution of the USA? Are Geofence Warrants and Reverse Keyword Warrants Invasive? Yes. Is the reason because in 1789 someone in the US didnt like something. No.

mindofbeholder 3y ago
Are you aware that the EFF operates out of the USA? Are you aware that the piece of legislation in question is proposed New York State law which is based in the USA? If you're going to fight US legislation, you have to use the law to do it and that includes the US Constitution and it's amendments...
phyllistine 3y ago
>Google Takes a Stand Against Keyword Search Warrants—in Brazil >Google Fails to Challenge Keyword Search Warrants in the U.S. Your distinction is already acknowledged in the second[1] article linked by the original article, that Google is being uniquely worse in America, where the Fourth Amendment does actually apply. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/google-fights-dragnet-warrant-users-search-histories-overseas-while-continuing https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/google-fights-dragnet-...
908B64B197 3y ago
> Is the EFF aware that 95.75% of the population of the planet does not live under the Amendments of the Constitution of the USA? And yet, that 95.75% has a net drain (especially among high earners and top of their fields professional) to the US, meaning that people all over the world seek and actively desire to be protected and live under the Constitution more than their countries' laws.

avidiax 3y ago

It's not enough to make such warrants illegal. It must also be illegal for companies to sell this information to the government, or ideally to even store this data outside of devices controlled by the end user.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Geofence warrants and reverse keyword searches are invasive, but that is a reason to limit their scope, not to ban them It is not unreasonable to ask who (whose mobile phones) were in an area during a riot. It is unreasonable to ask for the movements of everyone in a city for 6 months before hand. Some places (lawyers offices, health facilities etc) are particularly sensitive and warrants for them should be issued only in extreme cases (just like how it is much harder to get a warrant for a lawyers office). None of this is different from any other warrant: asking for a search warrant for a house is one thing, asking for one for every house on a street is another. I would support significant tightening of the US warrant system (judges are all too willing to blindly grant warrants with no actual thought or concern for citizens rights). But this is about balancing right, not one absolute right trumping another.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
haswell 3y ago
> It is not unreasonable to ask who (whose mobile phones) were in an area during a riot Would you expand on why you find this reasonable? As a city dweller, I often don’t have much choice about the routes that I take, and don’t find it reasonable that someone happening past an event of interest automatically places them under suspicion. Don’t get me wrong; I understand why LEO finds this to be valuable, but I don’t see how this translates to being reasonable. > But this is about balancing right, not one absolute right trumping another. To me, “balancing” looks more like requiring a sufficiently high bar to get clearance to track individuals, and the availability of a much more invasive mechanism (geofences) does not mean that a balanced solution must include it. I think there’s an analogy in the militarization of police departments. Some would argue this is “balancing” power between police and gangs, but there are far stronger arguments that it’s an inappropriate and dangerous solution to begin with.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  100%, I think the reasonable version of this is asking the carrier if a SPECIFIC device was in an area at a certain time. Meaning the police would have to collect the device IDs of all of those suspects and then could use cell phone data to confirm/refute an alibi