Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Forbes: To Catch A Robber, The FBI Attempted An Unprecedented Grab For Google Location Data
Repost from Civil Liberties Group:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/11682381
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/08/15/to-catch-a-robber-the-fbi-attempted-an-unprecendeted-grab-for-google-location-data/#cfa895a741d0
Back in March, as it investigated a spate of armed robberies across Portland, Maine, the FBI made an astonishing, unprecedented request of Google. The feds wanted the tech giant to find all users of its services whod been within the vicinity of at least two of nine of those robberies. They limited the search to within 30-minute timeframes around when the crimes were committed. But the request covered a total space of 45 hectares and couldve included anyone with an Android or iPhone using Googles tools, not just the suspect.
The FBI then demanded a lot of personal information on affected users, including their full names and addresses, as well as their Google account activity. The feds also wanted all affected users historical locations. According to court records, while Google didnt provide the information, the cops still found their suspect in the end.
Outside of concerns around government overreach, the FBIs remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off. The court warrants unearthed by Forbes indicate some at the FBI believe they have a right to that location data too, even if it belongs to innocents who might be unwittingly caught up in invasive government surveillance. And the government feels such fishing expeditions are permissable; it issued the warrant on Google without knowing whether or not the suspect used an Android device or any of the company services at all....
...Despite limiting the search to users whod been at two of the locations within certain timeframes, Medvin said the government didnt go far enough. This is a general search, which is prohibited under our Constitution. It is not particularized, a legal prerequisite to obtain a warrant under U.S. law, she said. The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the particularity requirement is to make general searches impossible and to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging.
The FBI then demanded a lot of personal information on affected users, including their full names and addresses, as well as their Google account activity. The feds also wanted all affected users historical locations. According to court records, while Google didnt provide the information, the cops still found their suspect in the end.
Outside of concerns around government overreach, the FBIs remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off. The court warrants unearthed by Forbes indicate some at the FBI believe they have a right to that location data too, even if it belongs to innocents who might be unwittingly caught up in invasive government surveillance. And the government feels such fishing expeditions are permissable; it issued the warrant on Google without knowing whether or not the suspect used an Android device or any of the company services at all....
...Despite limiting the search to users whod been at two of the locations within certain timeframes, Medvin said the government didnt go far enough. This is a general search, which is prohibited under our Constitution. It is not particularized, a legal prerequisite to obtain a warrant under U.S. law, she said. The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the particularity requirement is to make general searches impossible and to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging.
This is nothing more or less than a 'writ of assistance', without any probable cause
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1551 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Forbes: To Catch A Robber, The FBI Attempted An Unprecedented Grab For Google Location Data (Original Post)
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
OP
I support all attempts to thwart overweaning campaigns to create new law in violation of the ...
marble falls
Aug 2018
#2
Due proccess, freedom of movement, right to privacy ........ You know, the Bill of Rights.
marble falls
Aug 2018
#4
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)1. While I am not privy to the details,
I reject all attempts to thwart the Rule of Law.
marble falls
(57,097 posts)2. I support all attempts to thwart overweaning campaigns to create new law in violation of the ...
Bill of Rights.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)3. Educate me, you know
where I stand. What is being violated and how do we fix it?
marble falls
(57,097 posts)4. Due proccess, freedom of movement, right to privacy ........ You know, the Bill of Rights.