US Supreme Court reviews police use of cell location data

From the article: "Google says it stopped responding to geofence warrants last year, because the company no longer stores such data and instead keeps location data on each user’s device. But law enforcement has made geofence requests of other tech companies, including Apple, Lyft, Snapchat, Uber, Microsoft and Yahoo"

That explains the changes Google did to the Timeline and why you can't see it in the browser anymore. That is great from them actually.

I listened to the arguments, here's my notes live: --

One justice asked petitioner that because 'If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You dont have to have that feature on your phone. so whats the issue?'

They continue to talk about the Terms of Service stating that Google will comply with legitimate government requests. And both the petitioner and justices seem to agree that ANY data would be then up for grabs by the government (without a warrant) if it is stored in the cloud (including email, docs, photos, calendar, business records, etc). Sotomayor points out that the government would need NO warrant to access these records.

The google feature doesn't exist anymore. But in the amicus brief some 30 providers still have features in similar pattern of record storage. 'Google can track you down to 3 feet'. Google had to search "500 million" accounts for the search in question.

Justice Jackson asks why they aren't looking at the case as a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? The petitioner agrees, and points out that the data is protected by a password. So the data is NOT public.

"Data on the network is property." - how we get laws against stealing data/trespassing data

Probable Cause was an interesting argument. about 90 minutes in. It went by too quickly. The justice seems to say that google's servers are one 'place'. The justice also sees the output of 3 people despite google 'searching' 19 people as the only people who matter.

Responder is leaning heavy into the 'consent' for google to store location history. Is it possible to turn location history off on modern android phones? Responder also argues that because you're in public AT SOME POINT, then your location data is no different than a cctv data pointing at the street. Then a justice interrupts to make the responder say that YES the government CAN perform these searches on anyone it wants any time it wants without a warrant. For example people who seek abortion, or were at a political event. And the responder agrees!

Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail, where location is different because people are 'constantly advertising' their location to google.

To me, the responder is arguing two things:

1. That whatever you do in public is always available without a warrant

2. Your location history stored in google (or others) are generated in public and are therefore don't require a warrant.

Responder says location records are records google creates on your phone. Justice asks why no one of the 500M people who were searched have complained? (idk, maybe because we have no way of knowing we were searched?)

My biggest gripe is with the idea that any data shared with a third party is not subject to privacy.

With cameras going up everywhere, operated by the government and with AI enabled, I wonder if geofencing is the biggest privacy threat we have.

What's the difference between police looking up geofence data for the bank before and after a robbery to see who was there, and checking the bank's outdoor cameras to see what license plates were there?

I've been listening to this live and it's clear how Kavenaugh will vote regardless of the validity of the arguments. His mind is set and he's well into coming up with barely related hypotheticals introducing exigency into a case where there was none (the geofencing request for spying on a large group of people was done a week after the crime occured).

As long as a judge issued the warrant for geofence data, I see less wrong with it. It passed judicial scrutiny, AND can itself be challenged.

As of now, most of these jurisdictions are a FLOCK search away, with absolutely no warrant, oversight, warrant, or anything. Like, all of these abominations https://maps.deflock.org/?lat=37.5620&lng=-77.4559&zoom=11.2...

With parallel construction on the menu, this is largely academic. There is zero percent chance police and those who profit from their patronage will give up cell location sweeps.

Seems like a very clear fourth amendment violation; not that this is the ideal court to respect those precedents.

There's a nice map on Bluesky of what area of data Google is being asked to hand over. To be honest it's not actually huge. Personally though, that feels like not a great safeguard, not enough to make me ok with this. https://bsky.app/profile/audrelawdamercy.blacksky.app/post/3...

Worth noting that Google has changed its practice since 2019, supposedly, to keep location data on device, not accessible to them. However I have little doubt the cellphone carriers are also available to provide this data. https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet...

Governments rapidly turning data into a liability. Data is the new oil is out, data is the new toxic waste is in. The consumer sentiment continues to get worse and worse as it becomes clearer and clearer that we are being intruded upon at will. It would be excellent to see some progress, in expanding & respecting our human rights to privacy.

[dead]

if geofencing for all people in the area of a crime becomes legal

well then we know everyone who went to Epstein Island from their cellphone records

Congress must subpoena them ALL

especially the one that went all the way back to Trump Tower, who was it?

https://www.wired.com/video/watch/we-tracked-every-visitor-t...

Most people don't understand how powerless police are to find criminals. That they catch them at all is often amazing. I have firsthand knowledge of this from a tragic loss in my family. The investigation was severely hindered because investigators could not utilize cell location data, despite knowing someone was present at the scene. Police spent an extensive amount of time trying to identify them without success. When the identity was eventually discovered through entirely different avenues, it confirmed the individual had a cell phone on them. The location data would have resolved the identification trivially. We should enable this capability and put strict "guardrails" on its use.

Unrelated, but archive.ph links don't seem to work with nytimes anymore.