Google Says Geofence Warrants Make Up One-Quarter Of All US Demands (techcrunch.com) 55
For the first time, Google has published the number of geofence warrants it's historically received from U.S. authorities, providing a rare glimpse into how frequently these controversial warrants are issued. ZDNet's Zack Whittaker reports: The figures, published Thursday, reveal that Google has received thousands of geofence warrants each quarter since 2018, and at times accounted for about one-quarter of all U.S. warrants that Google receives. The data shows that the vast majority of geofence warrants are obtained by local and state authorities, with federal law enforcement accounting for just 4% of all geofence warrants served on the technology giant. According to the data, Google received 982 geofence warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019 and 11,554 in 2020. But the figures only provide a small glimpse into the volume of warrants received and did not break down how often it pushes back on overly broad requests.
Geofence warrants are also known as "reverse-location" warrants, since they seek to identify people of interest who were in the near vicinity at the time a crime was committed. Police do this by asking a court to order Google, which stores vast amounts of location data to drive its advertising business, to turn over details of who was in a geographic area, such as a radius of a few hundred feet at a certain point in time, to help identify potential suspects. Google has long shied away from providing these figures, in part because geofence warrants are largely thought to be unique to Google. Law enforcement has long known that Google stores vast troves of location data on its users in a database called Sensorvault, first revealed by The New York Times in 2019. Google spokesperson Alex Krasov said in a statement: "We vigorously protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement. We developed a process specifically for these requests that is designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed."
Geofence warrants are also known as "reverse-location" warrants, since they seek to identify people of interest who were in the near vicinity at the time a crime was committed. Police do this by asking a court to order Google, which stores vast amounts of location data to drive its advertising business, to turn over details of who was in a geographic area, such as a radius of a few hundred feet at a certain point in time, to help identify potential suspects. Google has long shied away from providing these figures, in part because geofence warrants are largely thought to be unique to Google. Law enforcement has long known that Google stores vast troves of location data on its users in a database called Sensorvault, first revealed by The New York Times in 2019. Google spokesperson Alex Krasov said in a statement: "We vigorously protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement. We developed a process specifically for these requests that is designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed."
Wrong kind of leak. (Score:2)
Sensorsieve is more like it.
You gotta love the prose (Score:5, Insightful)
"We vigorously protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement. We developed a process specifically for these requests that is designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed."
It's almost Soviet-like
Re:You gotta love the prose (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called being between a rock and a hard place. Something Slashdot appears to have never encountered.
Re: (Score:2)
>between
nah Billy, that word means in neither of two places, look can you see it here in your My First Dictionary?
they chose one, Billy
be ready, your second encounter with the word will be on the quiz
Do not collect the data (You gotta love the prose) (Score:4, Insightful)
There is one simple means by which Google can be free from handing over this data. It is very very simple...
DO NOT COLLECT THE DATA!
If Google felt it important to protect the privacy of the individual and they know the government is going to keep coming to them to get this data then take the code that collects this data and wipe it from their systems. Then wipe all prior location data. Anything in progress may be protected by a warrant so they can't delete that legally but they can stop collecting in the future without violating any laws.
If the government demands Google collect this data then Google becomes an agent of the government and this becomes a violation of our rights as protected under the constitution as amended. The government cannot track us in case we commit a crime or are a witness to a crime. If there is incidental data out there then they can seek warrants to get it, like with Google's advertising tracking.
I suspect that we are very soon going to see a competitor to Google that doesn't collect all we do. When that happens then Google will have to change their ways, such as not collect location data, to keep customers.
Re: (Score:1)
There is one simple means by which Google can be free from handing over this data.
Yeah, donate to political candidates that exhibit more respect. They have enough money to influence an election and prevent all this from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not really room for competition with the big G. Don't they make most of their money on ads? The few areas where it was possible to set up your own large ad network, like making your own social media site that most of the population spends most of their time on, and running your own ads on it, are already saturated.
If you mean a new phone OS, you're looking at a similar problem as unseating Windows as a desktop OS. Technically possible, technically desirable, but nobody's going to make money on it so
Re: Addendum (Score:4, Informative)
I forgot. Even if you replace Android it won't matter. One of the reasons 5G is getting pushed is that it lets the carriers collect the same granularity of location data as Google does. In a few years when the 4G towers get shut off, the only answer is going to be ditching the phone.
Re: (Score:3)
In a few years when the 4G towers get shut off, the only answer is going to be ditching the phone.
WiFi phones and services are a thing. There's location data tacked on to some WiFi systems but that requires cooperation from the phone to identify itself. A company trying to get in the space of privacy conscious smart devices could start with a new OS for existing devices like the iPod Touch and/or some Android devices, devices that are smart phones except for the lack of a cellular radio. Then they can move to partnering with a hardware manufacturer on making devices specific to their service. Then m
Re: (Score:1)
That argument is bogus. They're not stuck at all. They have enough money to finance opposition candidates that could protect our rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I’m naive (Score:3)
But how can this possibly jibe with the constitutional principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?
https://study.com/academy/less... [study.com]
Because investigation is not trial nor conviction (Score:5, Interesting)
The "truth" being sought is the whereabouts of individuals. Finding out who was at the scene of a crime is basic police work and not inherently judgmental.
I'm aware of my metadata and would eagerly invoke it to prove my whereabouts should they come into question. I already use my location history because I find it interesting.
https://support.google.com/acc... [google.com]
Of course bad actors could send their devices with others while going about their business but most criminals are a stupid lot.
Re:Because investigation is not trial nor convicti (Score:4, Interesting)
That's rather naive of you. Location data will absolutely be used to pin you to the wall if it supports a case against you, but will be brushed off and downplayed if it exonerates you.
I wonder about that. Someone or a group could go to an outdoor cafe, order a drink, pay with a credit card, leave their phone and/or smart watch under the table, in a nearby potted plant, whatever, then slip away to do some evil deed. Then come back, sit down, and order another drink. To pin this person or persons down would take a bit of work. Everyone at the cafe is a potential suspect or witness. Plenty of them ordered something before and/or after the crime. Plenty of them would have appeared to not move by the data gathered on their device for an hour or so around the time of the crime.
Additionally I saw an interesting video or TV show about disguises. Someone can change their appearance sufficiently to avoid suspicion very quickly. Someone in a suit and tie can toss off the coat, clip off a tie, put on a hat and glasses, etc. and the only thing common between the suspect and some guy at a cafe is an approximate race/height/weight/build, blue jeans, and maybe the color of his shirt. That could describe dozens if not hundreds of people on a busy street.
It's nearly trivial to falsify location data on a smart phone. It takes some know-how and effort but this is script-kiddie stuff. Someone not wanting to be tracked could do something like lock their location to their home, Wrigley Field, the White House, or wherever.
If Google doesn't fix this then the users will. People don't like being tracked by the government.
Re: (Score:3)
The blanket disclosure of everyone who was near the scene of a crime gives police a large number of potential suspects. All they need to do is find a few of these who don't have a viable "alibi" and bingo! they've solved the crime.
Police get lots of points for "solving" a crime. They don't get penalized for sending the wrong person to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
In an investigation into a suspected but as-yet-unsolved crime, it seem rather inevitable that no one has yet been proven guilty.
Re: (Score:1)
But how can this possibly jibe with the constitutional principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?
It's thoroughly constitutional to request a warrant before someone is proven guilty.
What seems awry in this case is that judges are apparently granting warrants on no suspicions other than that you were near the scene of the crime. (And of course, not even knowing that much until the warrant is served to Google.)
Re:I know I’m naive (Score:5, Informative)
What is in there is this:
Amendment IV: [...] no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These particular warrants do not descirbe the persons or things to be seized and are straight up unconstitutional by the plain language.
Upon probable cause...: A crime was committed! Check.
Describing the place...: "such as a radius of a few hundred feet". Check.
(Alt - Describing the place...: Google's servers. Check.)
The person or things to be seized...: A list of people (or rather devices and their owners) who were at the location, at the time, specified. Check.
It would appear, from the text you quoted, that there's an interpretation in which these warrants are straight up constitutional.
Re:I know I'm naive (Score:3)
Also, the exact wording would only apply to federal warrants. It's not clear to what extent the exact same restrictions apply to state or local governments.
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S constitution is the law of the land and supersedes any state law. State laws can't contradict anything in the "Federal" constitution. So while a state might have additional requirements for a warrant, they have to include probable cause, describing the place to be searched, items seized, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the exact wording would only apply to federal warrants. It's not clear to what extent the exact same restrictions apply to state or local governments.
Court cases require states to comply with the same requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Most states mirror federal protections in law and/or their constitution as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's thoroughly constitutional to request a warrant before someone is proven guilty.
For the police to make such a request, they first need evidence showing a reasonable probability that the person was involved in the crime. They can't just say "let us search the houses of everyone in Petaluma, California".
Who was in the house at the time of the killing? (Score:2)
These warrants ask "who was in the house (or yard) at the time of the killing?"
That's not a statement that Joe Bob is guilty of murder.
It's not a ruling that anyone in particular is guilty of anything in particular. It's just investigating who was present at the time some crime was committed.* Those present would probably be witnesses or suspects.
As I see it, this technique could be used unreasonably or reasonably. Unreasonable - asking who was within two miles of a large protest on a given day. Reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
These warrants ask "who was in the house (or yard) at the time of the killing?"
Serious question - do you have evidence of this? Because the linked document doesn't provide any specifics at all... only that geofence requests were made.
There's a world of difference between "who was within 50 feet of this spot at 3:25pm on April 11" and "give me the list of everyone who passed within a mile of this location on Thursday".
Re: (Score:2)
Well the summary says "such as a radius of a few hundred feet at a certain point in time". The median lot size on the US is about 100'x100' feet.
If you research it further and get facts about what's typical, I'd be interested to hear what you find.
Surely someone has asked for one that's much too broad, at least once. I think we kinda know that. I'm curious what's typical.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read TFS and TFA, and the text was pulled from the Techcruch article - but there's nothing relevant in the actual Google document, and he didn't interview anyone at Google (there was "a statement" from the company). So I suspect the article's author just put that text in as an illustration, and it's not based on anything in particular.
Solution to narrowing the scope of data disclosed (Score:5, Insightful)
It starts with not having the data to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes one can turn off location services, but that just means the information comes from another source, your carrier. The solution, naturally the harder one is a constitutional amendment stating a right to privacy.
Re:Solution to narrowing the scope of data disclos (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I believe EU law states exactly that. Because data you do not have cannot be misused. And hence the first thing is that in the EU they are not allowed to collect location data without explicit consent.
Re: (Score:3)
"explicit consent" sounds so grandiloquent and it's just a fucking "OK" button where you agree to Terms and Conditions.
Also Apple provides "impenetrable security" for iCloud and now it turns out they've been looking at your photos all along and are fully aware of how many "illegal content" is hosted by them.
Can you try being less naive?
Re: (Score:3)
"explicit consent" sounds so grandiloquent and it's just a fucking "OK" button where you agree to Terms and Conditions.
Also Apple provides "impenetrable security" for iCloud and now it turns out they've been looking at your photos all along and are fully aware of how many "illegal content" is hosted by them.
Can you try being less naive?
Nope. It requires explicite, informed consent. So it will have at the very least its own OK button coming with an explanation what exactly you consent here too. Could you find out some minimal facts before accusing people of being naive? Because that sounds very much like you are the naive one here.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, I believe EU law states exactly that. Because data you do not have cannot be misused. And hence the first thing is that in the EU they are not allowed to collect location data without explicit consent.
Yes, in EU when you buy a cellphone and you boot it for the first time, you get a screen where you are presented with the choice of either agreeing to terms and conditions, or owning a very expensive brick. Such a huge difference it makes.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what location data Google has.
I understand that those of you who have Google accounts can look up your location history.
But what about the phones without any Google account on them?
All within the US? (Score:3)
Can a Russian court order a geofence warrant for a location outside Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
A US court can demand any information which Google has stored anywhere in the world. This is because US Law applies to US Citizens and Corporations everywhere in the world, not just in the US. This is also why the IRS can tax your overseas income even though you don't even live in the US, if you are a US citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
A court can order anything it wishes to. Whether the order can be enforced can be a different matter. Courts have ordered people given asylum (by someone else) to be executed.
"We vigorously protect the privacy of our users" (Score:5, Insightful)
This basically means "We do not care about the privacy of our users at all, but like to lie about that." Because otherwise they would not record that data as they know it is a privacy invasion and they know they cannot keep it private.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Google considers the data about it's users to be an important commercial secret. They care a lot about it, and don't want to share it with anyone (else). Their business is selling ads to targeted audiences, and they don't want anyone else able to compete with them.
Re: (Score:2)
How has that anything to do with what I wrote?
Shouldn't even stupid criminals know by now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wear gloves, wear a mask, don't drive your own car to the robbery, AND LEAVE YOUR PHONE AT HOME?
Re: (Score:3)
There was a case of some idiot that mailed a dog muzzle to herself, she claimed it was from some unknown person trying to send her a message. It turned out it was ordered from her Amazon account and paid for with her credit card. Either this person stole her credit card and then replaced it without her knowledge, while also somehow gaining access to her Amazon account, or she ordered it herself. Someone would think such a person would run up hundreds of dollars on other purchases, and not bother to retur
"We vigorously protect the privacy of our users" (Score:1)
*ba-dum TISS*
. . .
"Yeah, we do... unless some advertisers pays us money. Otherwise we couldn't demand that money, now could we?"
. . .
All I wonder, is: Why does law enforcement just buy a few ads for that time frame. (Yeah, I mean in the past). It would result in the same thing. By it being in the past, Google could tell what its purpose is, and respond accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand their business model. They want to be the only ones able to sell ads to targeted audiences, so they don't want to share the data, they want to sell ad placement.
Whether they would sell ads to folks whose name begins with "bare" and ends with "foot" is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google doesn't want to give out it's proprietary information. It places the ads to meet the specs, it doesn't say where it placed them. So that wouldn't return the desired information. (And they probably *can't* place ads in the past....but they might sell a contract to attempt to do so.)
Re: "We vigorously protect the privacy of our user (Score:2)
Yin-Yang (Score:2)
Every piece of technology has duality. While the above may be troubling to some, it has it's benefits too. 18 months ago, search and rescue was looking for a man who went missing in a popular hiking area. Cellular pings put him in one location but he wasn't there nor was his cellphone. Using exigent circumstances, the Sheriff examined his computer and learned that he used Google location services. This was far more accurate and showed him about a mile west of the cellular ping location. That ended up
If it Smells like a general warrants it is. (Score:2)