A Geofence Warrant Typo Cast a Location Dragnet Spanning Two Miles Over San Francisco (techcrunch.com) 18
Zack Whittaker, reporting for TechCrunch: Civil liberties advocates have long argued that "geofence" search warrants are unconstitutional for their ability to ensnare entirely innocent people who were nearby at the time a crime was committed. But errors in the geofence warrant applications that go before a judge can violate the privacy of vastly more people -- in one case almost two miles away.
Attorneys at the ACLU of Northern California found what they called an "alarming error" in a geofence warrant application that "resulted in a warrant stretching nearly two miles across San Francisco." The error, likely caused by a typo, allowed the requesting law enforcement agency to capture information on anyone who entered the stretch of San Francisco erroneously marked on the search warrant.
"Many private homes were also captured in the massive sweep," wrote Jake Snow, ACLU staff attorney, in a blog post about the findings. It's not known which law enforcement agency requested the nearly two-mile-long geofence warrant, or for how long the warrant was in effect. The attorneys questioned how many other geofence warrant application mistakes had slipped through and resulted in the return of vastly more data in error.
Attorneys at the ACLU of Northern California found what they called an "alarming error" in a geofence warrant application that "resulted in a warrant stretching nearly two miles across San Francisco." The error, likely caused by a typo, allowed the requesting law enforcement agency to capture information on anyone who entered the stretch of San Francisco erroneously marked on the search warrant.
"Many private homes were also captured in the massive sweep," wrote Jake Snow, ACLU staff attorney, in a blog post about the findings. It's not known which law enforcement agency requested the nearly two-mile-long geofence warrant, or for how long the warrant was in effect. The attorneys questioned how many other geofence warrant application mistakes had slipped through and resulted in the return of vastly more data in error.
We should just make it illegal to collect and stor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As an alternative, go the other way with it. Collect, store, and make it publicly available. IE: Remove the farce that it is being kept confidential. Maybe people would stop carrying around active location trackers that, by necessary design, constantly report home. We might go back to the days where there was a "home phone", even if it's cellular.
Please note, I don't actually think this would be a good thing; More-so, I think it would be a more equal application of the law than such broad geofenced location
you must acquit! (Score:1)
you must acquit!
Logs for Thee... (Score:4, Insightful)
...It's not known which law enforcement agency requested the nearly two-mile-long geofence warrant...
Right, because the agency wearing literal body cams tasked with enforcing the law couldn't possibly have audit log mandates, right?
...or for how long the warrant was in effect.
Yes. Tell me how you are (somehow) fully compliant with all data retention mandates while confirming once again you have zero capability to prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
I call shenanigans.
Some officer had to sign the warrant. And they can't find that officer's name (and thence their agency)?
Just a little oopsie (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry about it. Just a typo. Nothing fishy going on here, no sir-ee-
Length of time? Issuing agency? No idea. Read the warrant you say? This is official business citizen, time to move along. Stop filming. SIT DOWN! STAND UP! SIT DOWN STAND UP! STOP RESISTING.
The Tech Is Fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... hello? Is this thing on? Did you not read TFA or even the synopsis?
The problem is literally that there was a mistake, regardless of careful review, which allowed this to happen.
"My bad, I accidentally set the nuke for 3MT and not just 0.3MT and we destroyed the entire city, not just a 3 block area."
"My bad, I just shot half a dozen people with a burst of automatic gunfire instead of sniping the guy with the hostage."
"My bad, I just shot someone instead of tasing them."
No. You don't get a free ticket out
"Erroneous" or not... (Score:2)
Erroneously or not, what was done was unconstitutional and basis for civil and criminal charges, IMO. In an ideal world , the officer and the judge who granted the warrant should be held accountable.
It really doesn't matter if the cops and the courts break the law by accident ("oh, my bad!") or with malice, the result is the same.
(No, I don't have any pretense that it will change or become better, either. On the contrary, can probably expect an ever-increasing levity with what's allowed for these dragnets.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was anyone harmed by this error?
Good question. Seeing as how the government doesn't send apology letters to everyone whose data they "accidentally" hoovered up and potentially abused in any number of inventive and worrying ways, how are they to know what harm they may have suffered as a result?
Regardless, they've all been harmed statutorily as there was no probable cause for any warrant to issue for their data. The Constitution doesn't have a "no harm, no foul" clause.
Was it, though? (Score:2)
Was it a typo, though?
Seems like a nifty "oops" way to collect a LOT of cellphone numbers and where they're at...and the identity info attached to them. Or vice versa. Hmmm.
"We had your phone number, we just didn't know where you were" or "We knew where you were, now we know your phone number".
A sweet data trove of stuff for law enforcement to paw through.
But yeah, probably just a lil' ol' oopsie, a "typo", no big deal, right?