9 ms·

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 (whos

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
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I think this really comes down to what is reasonable. And there is no hard, provable, answer to that. To me this is no different to searching my room (my private space) when you suspect my room mate of a crime. Is it right that my privacy is invaded? No. It is sadly necessary because unfortunately, though not my fault, there might be evidence etc there? Yes. Another analogy is if I worked somewhere and something was stolen, I would expect the police to receive my name. I am no theft, but I was in the place at the time, so it's not unreasonable that the police might want to at least try to speak to me right? I can always decline to co-operate but maybe I saw something? Or maybe a quick search reveals I am selling the same item that was stolen on my ebay account and suddenly the crime is solved? But the only way for the police to start work is to know who was there. I also think this sort of invasion is very small: searching my person is a bigger violation, searching my dwelling too. Merely discovering I was at a place is hardly a violation at all, no one would call it that if a witness named me as there so why not a mobile phone company? I agree 100% about the militarisation of the police though... As a brit, I wonder how much of that is just poor policy, and how much is due to a toxic mix of "the right to bear arms" and drug prohibition. What do you think?

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
LatteLazy 3y ago
I think this really comes down to what is reasonable. And there is no hard, provable, answer to that. To me this is no different to searching my room (my private space) when you suspect my room mate of a crime. Is it right that my privacy is invaded? No. It is sadly necessary because unfortunately, though not my fault, there might be evidence etc there? Yes. Another analogy is if I worked somewhere and something was stolen, I would expect the police to receive my name. I am no theft, but I was in the place at the time, so it's not unreasonable that the police might want to at least try to speak to me right? I can always decline to co-operate but maybe I saw something? Or maybe a quick search reveals I am selling the same item that was stolen on my ebay account and suddenly the crime is solved? But the only way for the police to start work is to know who was there. I also think this sort of invasion is very small: searching my person is a bigger violation, searching my dwelling too. Merely discovering I was at a place is hardly a violation at all, no one would call it that if a witness named me as there so why not a mobile phone company? I agree 100% about the militarisation of the police though... As a brit, I wonder how much of that is just poor policy, and how much is due to a toxic mix of "the right to bear arms" and drug prohibition. What do you think?