This is extremely “Big Brother”-ish.
Am not a fan.
One of the comments makes sense to me.
pasted… So the argument is there is an assumption of privacy in that companies have to create? Ok bogus so how about this. When using a device the device is yours, but the technical services through apps you agree to use including your phone provider is owned by someone else and you give that entity permission to track and use your data. This is why there are opt out options now but many of those apps will collect your data when you use their apps. Since you don’t own that data the argument to unreasonable search has almost no leg to stand on. You don’t want to be tracked don’t use the app or don’t carry a cell phone.
I always click on the “don’t share data with other apps” option.
But in today’s society is not carrying a cell phone really a viable option?
Gosh…if you don’t commit the murder that you don’t find yourself in this position.
Sure, that Constitution is just a “piece of paper”!
Anyone “near a location” sounds pretty broad. I mean, in some situations, saying find all the devices that were in all five of these locations might only get you the suspect. But one or two?
Always keep location turned off unless using it.
Now, do you think that your location is ever really “off”?
I don’t care if the cops know where I am at any time. They could find me if I was missing, or at least know where to search for me. I’m not hiding from anyone.
One of these creeps pled guilty the other no contest, they were guilty of murdering an innocent man and trying to use some bullshit to get freed.
I don’t consider the Bill of Rights to be “some bullshit”.
I can just see the future if this was outlawed. Jeeze, we can’t use this feature to find your missing loved one anymore because two guilty murderers filed a lawsuit and it’s been banned. Fuck that.
That’s the point of the constitution. Guilty people have rights. The state has to be able to prove its case without the help of illegal searches.
1 Like
Yes.
1 Like
I didn’t read the terms of service when I signed up for all my gadgets, but I’m sure they have their asses covered. Also I’m sure the police can use a drivers license or postal to find a current address if they were looking for someone., that could fall in the same category of privacy.don’t you think? BTW nothing is private on the internet, lets outlaw that too.
What if they intercepted antifa plans to stage a BLM riot?
And THEY won’t share your data, but they will certainly allow YOU to share you entire life history…unless YOU read up on their security and privacy settings. Facebook has these silly assed games daring you to find something that is blatantly obvious. And millons of people click on that. And a healthy number of Facebook users have their accounts WIDE open…but those particular scams are looking for your “friends”…and the default for “who can see my friends” is - public. EVERYBODY can see your friends. So YOU share that data, not the site.
Then they could not use it to convict
From the article they are warrants…
Geofence warrants, which compel Google to provide a list of devices whose location histories indicate they were near a crime scene, are used thousands of times a year by American law enforcement agencies, helping them solve murders, arsons, burglaries, sexual assaults, home invasions and many other crimes — including the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The warrants are typically sealed by a judge until after a suspect has been arrested.
Police and prosecutors say geofence warrants are legal because they are signed by judges or magistrates and are limited to circumstances when investigators have strong reason to believe they will find the culprits.
Yes, they are warrants. Whether they are constitutionally permissible warrants is the question before the courts.
I remember when Apple fought the DOJ regarding a back door encryption tool.
Google should actually be the ones fighting this.
Forget convictions…what if they heard it and police had a heads up. Good or bad.