Posted on 12/14/2023 4:58:34 PM PST by george76
Code is law, they say.
...
Geofence warrants are warrants to obtain the location data that Google users let Google collect if they opt in to Google's location history service, which about a third of Google users do. Geofence warrants have been possible because, if you opt in, Google keeps a copy of the location history. And records are kept can be compelled, at least if the legal process is valid.
All of which makes this Google announcement from yesterday of great interest. Google will no longer keep location history even for the users who opted in to have it turned on. Instead, the location history will only be kept on the user's phone.
The Timeline feature in Maps helps you remember places you've been and is powered by a setting called Location History. If you're among the subset of users who have chosen to turn Location History on (it's off by default), soon your Timeline will be saved right on your device — giving you even more control over your data. Just like before, you can delete all or part of your information at any time or disable the setting entirely.
If you're getting a new phone or are worried about losing your existing one, you can always choose to back up your data to the cloud so it doesn't get lost. We'll automatically encrypt your backed-up data so no one can read it, including Google.
Additionally, when you first turn on Location History, the auto-delete control will be set to three months by default, which means that any data older than that will be automatically deleted. Previously this option was set to 18 months. If you want to save memories to your Timeline for a longer period, don't worry — you can always choose to extend the period or turn off auto-delete controls altogether.
These changes will gradually roll out through the next year on Android and iOS, and you'll receive a notification when this update comes to your account.
Unless I'm missing something, this will entirely defeat geofence warrants— which, I would speculate, was probably the point of Google's policy change. If Google doesn't keep the records, Google will have no records to turn over. If the government comes to Google with a court order for geofence data, Google will just say, sorry, we don't keep that stuff anymore.
My very tentative sense, from a public policy standpoint, is that this seems like a bit of a bummer. Geofencing was being used to solve some really serious crimes—like murders, rape, and armed robberies—when there were no known suspects or leads and the case had gone cold. Having governments be able, with sufficient cause, to go to a court, get a court order, and then obtain potentially responsive location records that could provide a lead to investigate was, on the whole, a good thing.
Of course, that public interest has to be balanced with the public interest in privacy. But my sense is that geofence warrants have been implemented (and could be implemented in the future) in ways that provide far greater privacy protection than normally exist with warrants. Every technique raises risks of abuse. But if you had to look at all the pluses and minuses of different techniques, a court order regime to access geofence records had more pluses and fewer minuses than those records not existing.
It will be interesting to see if we learn why Google made this change. Google is a private company. It has to answer to its shareholders, not to the public interest. And it's totally plausible that this was just a sensible business decision. If Google can provide location history for those who want it without keeping the records, Google presumably benefits by not having to deal with the privacy headaches of responding to geofence warrants.
If this is what drove Google' decision, it's an example of a less-appreciated way that the market regulates privacy. If you're providing a data service, responding to court orders for user data is not part of your business model. It's a costly hassle. And it can only lead to bad press. So you might look for ways to avoid keeping records, as records never kept are records that cannot be turned over.
As always, stay tuned.
Just leave the phone at home
They have shown not to be responsible and should have their toys taken away.
Good. You know the DC “intelligence” apparatchiks were abusing the capability.
So they say. I don’t trust their words in the slightest.
Sell that to the J6ers in the DC Lubyanka.
-fJRoberts-
15 years after murder
Kelsey Smith’s family reflects on her impact 15 years after murder
Kelsey Smith.jpg
Greg and Missey Smith.jpg
By: Tod Palmer
Posted at 7:51 PM, Jun 01, 2022
and last updated 10:24 PM, Jun 01, 2022KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Fifteen years after she was abducted and murdered while running an errand, Kelsey Smith’s name still resonates across Kansas City, the country and the world — and her family’s fight to provide law enforcement with tools to prevent a similar tragedy continues, too. “Fifteen years feels like yesterday in some ways,” Kelsey’s mom, Missey Smith, said last week during an interview at the family home.
Kelsey’s dad, Greg Smith, agreed: “It's a weird feeling. It can feel just like yesterday, and then there are times where it feels like, ‘Wow, it's been a long time.’”
Greg and Missey Smith.jpg
Darrius Smith/KSHB 41
Greg and Missey Smith spokes to KSHB 41 News on the 15th anniversary of the abduction of their daughter, Kelsey Smith, from an Overland Park retailer.There was nothing particularly noteworthy about June 2, 2007, when Kelsey popped into a Target store in Overland Park to pick up a gift for her boyfriend.
Perhaps that’s precisely why the story continues to resonate a decade and a half later.
“I think there's such an interest, because she just went to Target,” Missey said. “She's just an all-American girl that went to Target and that was it. She didn't come home. ... No one thinks you're just going to go pick up a gift from Target or the department store and not come home. That just doesn't happen, especially in Overland Park, Kansas.”
As she left Target, Kelsey was abducted by Edwin Hall in the parking lot and eventually murdered.
Her body was dumped in a wooded area near Longview Lake, but it wouldn’t be found for four days as the family fought with Verizon to obtain location data from her phone.
Once an engineer armed with the data from Verizon narrowed down the search area, investigators located Kelsey’s remains within 45 minutes.
During the 15 years since her death, Kelsey, who would have turned 33 on May 3, has become the face of a movement to force telecommunications providers to be responsive in emergency situations, especially as GPS and cell-phone technology has continued to improve and evolve.
kelsey-smiths-family-reflects-on-her-impact-15-years-after-murder
“Google will no longer keep location history even for the users who opted in to have it turned on. Instead, the location history will only be kept on the user’s phone.”
That is a big huge BS right there. They are Alphabet, they collect for the government.
Google = CIA
As soon as you tell me where in that pesky constitution thingy the word “emergency” is used....
Isn’t geofencing what True The Vote used? The phone companies will still have this info, right? Anyone know?
Its in there right after the section that discusses "Cell Phones".
(Surprised you did not argue that there was no emergency since she had been dead for 4 days.)
And they can lie without consequence.
No, that’s not a valid argument....
But interfering with my rights to justify finding someone is not valid either....
Kelsey should have been armed
I would point out that your right to privacy is not absolute. On the basis of other information developed independently law enforcement can obtain a warrants to obtain things like your books and papers and computers.
Here, Kelsey's parents confirmed on surveillance video that she had been abducted. (Evidence that a crime had been committed.) Not in the article but IIRC her parents had to obtain a court order to get her phone info, even though she was their minor daughter. If you feel this use of geo-tracking information by parents looking for their minor daughter interferes with your right to privacy go ahead and feel whatever you want. In the future in the case of Google phone service, another basis will be required to issue warrants on the phones containing this location information which will require physical seizure from their owners. .
In passing I would also note that the right to life is also a constitutional right and in the hierarchy of rights outweighs your assumed right to privacy on what is a publicly broadcast and transmitted phone network subject interception by any group with the proper equipment. Same applies to the Internet, privacy is an ideal but good luck with the realities of that "utility".
Comment; Geo-location information can be incredibly beneficial tracking missing people whose cars have plunged over embankments or into a pond, hikers, confused elderly, boaters floating in the ocean, things like that. With a warrant It can be used to track criminals. Apparently you can buy this information and catch Fraudsters on bikes dumping fake ballots in illegitimate Ballot Collection boxes at 2:00 AM. (This seems wrong, but I do not think they identify the phone user... but I do not know how else you track this info.) It was used in a very illegitimate way by law enforcement to track people at the J6 protest / FIB false flag staged insurrection. If there is a legal basis to obtain this information without the phone owners consent it should be done with a warrant. Google is just opting out of all the legal responsibility and cost this by putting it on a phone and allowing it to lapse after a short period of time.
**Phone service providers should have a signup authorization option for users to allow emergency use of their geo-location and specify what constitutes an emergency.
You state that law enforcement can obtain warrants.
I agree with this concept wholeheartedly.
As for the parents getting the data, of the phone is in their name it’s a non issue.
The data should have been provided.
If the phone is in her name ( we can discuss the validity of minors signing contracts at a later date ) then the parents have no rights to the data.
That’s the law.
Now if a warrant is issued for the data, then the phone company should release the data.
Theoretically.
With the preponderance of plain old BS warrants being issued from the bench, the phone companies are in a precarious position. They will err on the side of caution.
The right of the people to be secure in their papers is absolute ( yes, the data on your phone is considered your papers ).
A simple solution is to install tracking software on the phone.
Another solution is to place the phones for your minor children in your name.
I did both of these actions when my children were minors.
Easy peasy and consitutionally compliant.
Someone else’s lack of planning doesn’t constitute an emergency on my part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.