Cops Wanting To Track Movements Of Hundreds Of People Are Turning To Google For Location Records

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: March 20, 2018 at 11:20:13 AM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Cops Wanting To Track Movements Of Hundreds Of People Are Turning To Google For Location 
> Records
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> Cops Wanting To Track Movements Of Hundreds Of People Are Turning To Google For Location Records
> from the wherein-'probable-cause'-is-defined-as-'maybe-this-might-be-helpful? dept
> By Tim Cushing
> Mar 20 2018
> <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180319/14581739453/cops-wanting-to-track-movements-hundreds-people-are-turning-to-google-location-records.shtml>
>
> Police in Raleigh, North Carolina are using Google as a proxy surveillance dragnet. This likely isn't limited to 
> Raleigh. Google harvests an astounding amount of data from users, but what seems to be of most interest to law 
> enforcement is location info.
>
> In at least four investigations last year – cases of murder, sexual battery and even possible arson at the massive 
> downtown fire in March 2017 – Raleigh police used search warrants to demand Google accounts not of specific suspects, 
> but from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime, according to a WRAL News review of court 
> records. These warrants often prevent the technology giant for months from disclosing information about the searches 
> not just to potential suspects, but to any users swept up in the search.
>
> The good news is there are warrants in play. This likely isn't due to the PD's interest in "balancing civil rights 
> with public safety," no matter what the government's frontmouths have stated to the press. The WRAL report includes a 
> warrant request containing a footnote indicating Google pushed back when the cops showed up with a subpoena demanding 
> info on everyone who had been in the vicinity of a crime scene.
>
> The State of North Carolina maintains that the information sought herein consists entirely of "record[s]" other than 
> the "content of communications…" Such records, require only a showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe 
> the information sought is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation… Despite this, Google has 
> indicated that it believes a search warrant, and not a court order, is required to obtain the location data sought in 
> this application. Although the Government disagrees with Google's position, because there is probable cause to 
> believe the information sought herein will contain evidence of the criminal offenses specified in this affidavit, the 
> Government is seeking a search warrant in this case.
>
> But the bad news is that warrants are supposed to be tailored to specific searches related to specific suspects. 
> These warrants are allowing law enforcement to obtain information on dozens or hundreds of people entirely unrelated 
> to the criminal act being investigated, other than their proximity to the crime scene.
>
> At least 19 search warrants issued by law enforcement in Wake County since 2015 targeted specific Google accounts of 
> known suspects, court documents show.
>
> But the March search warrants in the two homicide cases are after something different.
>
> The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. 
> In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. 
> Augustine's University.
>
> Cellphones -- and any other devices using Google products that serve up location info -- are steady generators of 
> third party records. Conceivably, this puts a wealth of location info only a subpoena's-length away from the 
> government. It appears Google is pushing back, but that tactic isn't going to work in every case. The Raleigh PD may 
> have been willing to oblige Google to avoid a fight in court (and the risk of handing over information about how 
> often it approaches third parties for records and what it demands from them), but not every PD making use of Google's 
> location info stash is going to back down this easily.
>
> Other warrants obtained by WRAL show local law enforcement has collected phone info and location data on thousands of 
> people while investigating such crimes as arson and sexual battery. Despite having no evidence showing the 
> perpetrators of these crimes even had a cellphone in their possession at the time the incidents occurred, agencies 
> approached Google with judge-approved warrants to collect data on people living in nearby apartment units or visiting 
> local businesses near the crime scene.
>
> The government's attorneys believe everything is perfectly fine because no communications or other content is 
> collected. But defense attorneys and rights advocates point out these warrants approach civil liberties from entirely 
> the wrong direction, making everyone in the area a suspect before trimming down the list. In one way, it's a lot like 
> canvassing a neighborhood looking for a suspect. But this analogy only holds if everyone officers approach is viewed 
> as a suspect. This isn't the case in normal, non-Google-based investigations.
>
> After five years as a Wake County prosecutor, Raleigh defense attorney Steven Saad said he's familiar with police 
> demands for Google account data or cell tower records on a named suspect. But these area-based search warrants were 
> new to him.
>
> "This is almost the opposite technique, where they get a search warrant in the hopes of finding somebody later to 
> follow or investigate," Saad said. "It's really hard to say that complies with most of the search warrant or probable 
> cause rules that we've got around the country."
>
> The Wake County District Attorney believes these warrants are solid enough to survive a challenge in court. The 
> government may get its wish. Officers using these to obtain data will likely come out alright, thanks to good faith 
> reliance on approved warrants, but the magistrates approving dragnet collection as an initial investigatory step may 
> have some explaining to do.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20180320131725:8C7E631E-2C62-11E8-A937-BD67C1BCC21E
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com