@@toadhall5041 Almost 4000 British citizens are in prison and international internet critics are going to be arrested by British coppers for criticizing king and country today.
now everybody are treated like different levels of inmates, but there are enough laws to make you guilty of something to get your privileges revoked if you step on the wrong toes and get you set to a smaller cell.
How this could ever be constitutional without a named suspect is baffling... This is like fishing with dynamite. So a crime is committed in a stadium, they get a warrent that allows them to search everyone in there?
Is a camera at said stadium also not allowed to be used because it shows the mass location and identification by face of all of those in the stadium? I agree that it's scary (including the cameras), but it also makes sense that in fighting crime, tools that can be used FOR crimes will also be used to fight it.
The Legitimacy, and Power of a nation, hinges upon a monopoly on Violence - one, that the Original founders of the United states were generally opposed to establishing within the US, prefering Militia, Local police forces, and similar. This, by the way, is the basis of the Second Amendment. Actually, if you look through history - regardless of the TYPE of government, the rise of Tyranny often goes in lock step with the rise of a professional standing army; especially a large one. When small lords, who - because of their dependence on local people, must serve and protect the interests of those people - have standing armies, they often will stand opposed to tyrranical government regardless of democratic leader, or monarch, or whatever else. When a large standing army is beholden only to the leader - that, is when you get a Tyrranical rule. But, in a case where the leader of a nation has limited power - you need a second step to transition to Tyrrany: The leaders power must be expanded, and - in a democracy at least - this often must happen slowly. Look at the rise of 3 letter agencies, and the power they wield to enforce rules without needing specific legislation created. That, is how we got here. The longer it remains, the more normalized it becomes, and by extension - the more difficult it is to remove it.
@@Subangelis I'm not on the side of allowing, without restrictions, the use of such tools like cameras or cell phones, but I'm also not naive to the fact that the exploitation of those technologies to commit crimes will also trickle down into the use of those same technologies to attempt to curb said crimes.
I think Google got sick of fulfilling these warrants... A few months ago I got a notice from Google that they were going to start storing my location on the device rather than on their servers and if I wanted to keep my prior history, I had to move it all to my phone by a certain date. It looks like they're changing their model to say they don't have the data so you can't serve a warrant on us anymore..
@@ponycarresurrection4401I got the same notice. It's a Google maps feature that had to be turned on manually in the Maps settings. I think it was called "trips" or "places visited"
@@ponycarresurrection4401”Why Is This Happening? Privacy and Security: By storing this data on your device instead of online, your location history is more secure and private. Only you have access to this data unless you choose to back it up. Control Over Your Data: This gives you more control over your data.” literally in a communication I have from Google, genius.
if I may, the problem is not that there is a split, it's that we live in a police state where corporations are more than willing to rat all their customers out to the government; the very same corporations who received a $1.5 trillion tax cut from the very same government. quid pro quo
They usually fight the warrants, but ultimately the government forces them. The problem is that privacy isn’t protected as well as it should be by law, and that everyone is tracked all the time and the data is collected and stored.
@@gameguy1337 just like how no one is forcing these required institutions to adopt worse and worse policies for people/customers. If police violate my rights are you just going to tell me *"No one is forcing you to be a part of society y'know"* ?
It's about time that a circuit court upholds the Constitution of the United States. The fourth amendment makes it very clear on unreasonable searches. I also believe that fisa warrants should also be held unconstitutional. I also believe that big tech companies that allow this gross Injustice to occur, should be held financially liable. It would send a clear message to all companies that you do not have the right to disclose personal information. Without constitutional due process!
Yeah holding a limited liability entity financially responsible is effective. Power is distributed under our system and by necessity so is accountability.
I'm in my 40s. Once the next generation behind me is in office, and their are no people alive who remember what life was like before the smartphone, there's probably going to be a central system that can instantly locate any person, and predict the next 24 hours of behavior. Maybe sooner? Hope I'm very wrong.
Same thing with cameras. I walked into a bank the other day where you expect to be filmed by 5 different angles at all times. But there were cameras that felt like they were playful! There was a large lense above a TV with a faux sound bar microphone? To mimic a webcam. Isn't that cute...? And creepy.
That's the way things move, and they move in this direction without the input of the ppl. It still bothers me a lot that laws or certain practices are so much harder to change once implemented, but often long after irrepairable harm had already occurred.
It not the geofence warrant itself that is deemed unconstitutional. It is the way Google needs to retrieve the information (by accessing all user accounts) that makes the search too broad (general). If Google stores the geo information in such away it does not have to iterate over all 592 million accounts, the warrant would be valid. Meaning that it is only considered unconstitutional as long Google needs to perform these geofenced warrants by iterating over all accounts.
@@2Fast4Mellow Way to kill my optimism but that makes sense. I wonder how many people are in prison based on information provided by Google (where there was a lack of substantive evidence or credible basis for a warrant without electronic records). I would not be surprised if it was in the hundreds of thousands at any given time. Their employees are thought of as being very “progressive” and “anti-fascist” but Google as a whole is basically just a tool for mass imprisonment that happens to also have a search engine.
@timdowney6721: Which is why Google started putting that data back on individual devices, instead of in their database! The days of " 'L.E.' fishing with dynamite" may have already come, at least where Google is concerned, to its conclusion! 🧨🧨🧨🧨
Unconstitutional... I had a couple show up to my house looking for a stolen phone. They told me the phone ping in the field behind us but thought the phone would be in the house next to us. Showed me the Google picture of the house they thought they were talking about and it ended up being our us. I told them, no stolen phone here, go check the field behind our property. Can you imagine if that was the cops? They would've probably opt-in for a no knock search warrant, no witnesses alive method, for a "stolen" phone. No to geofence warrants.
Down vote. The first part of you saying it's unconstitutional, and is also a known scam, which got you the upvotes. Then you edited your comment to add the second part, by claiming something as true without proof, to make it look like people were agreeing with both statements.
It happened in Houston. Cops showed up with a warrant to search an elderly ladys house for a stolen tablet. One of the officers tried looking in the lady's purse. When the lady grabbed the purse reminding them it wasn't covered under the warrant they arrested her for battery on an officer. It turns out there was a cell tower next to the ladies house so cops automatically assumed she stole the tablet based on the tablets GPS pinging of that tower.
So just to be clear, not only are American police violating the privacy of a decent chunk of American's, but literally the entire world, just to catch a criminal, I thought the point was that America respected privacy.
Since when has the US justice system gave a damn about innocence or false positives? There are a lot of people locked up in prison for crimes they never committed.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
@Faretheewell608 That's a bit different, as it has nothing to do with the government. However, FedEx, on the other hand, is currently driving with plate-reader cameras on all their trucks and they contract with law enforcement to provide them the data so they have a location on every vehicle that's passed a FedEx truck.
Working for a telco, I became acquainted with the subpoena process and how frequently used for billing records indicating calls to or from some number. I decided then and there that, were I the CEO of a telco, our stored records would be limited to those necessary for technical service (to ensure customers had the access they were paying for), stored only for so long as the technical need existed, and, of course, records regarding wiretaps established according to duly issued valid warrants. It is the customer who is buying the service, not the government, and it isn't the business of the telco, or any other common carrier, to facilitate random spying. Get a warrant! First!
@@annelarrybrunelle3570 Google hands over your data to law enforcement without a warrant. Its always under the guise of public safety. Google is not your friend. They collect and sell data.
Agreed, the way this can is because companies store tons of data on their customers in hopes of selling that data. Memory is cheap until you are looking at data for millions of people for decades.
@@robertball3578the problem isn’t the cost of actual storage. It’s the cost of energy and the stress on the power grid. This is the major problem that’s already here. It’s why it’s so silly people get up in arms over solar or wind. They have zero clue what’s coming and it’s more then just a climate crisis. Data centers are decimating the power supply across the country. They are building more and more data centers. Look into the data centers just in rural Virginia. It’s crazy. This cost to companies is worth it as your data is the most precious resource known to man. Far more valuable then gold and oil. Every modern thought or decision you’ve made is now influenced by your own data and online habits thanks to strategic marketing, algorithms and propaganda. Every belief, opinion and decision has been influenced. This doesn’t even factor in the other countless uses and monetary considerations of your data. Your comment here is recorded and analyzed. It told them a great deal about you personally as well as the regular things like what device you’re using and where your watching this video and what other interests you had prior and after watching this video. It will also serve videos, ads, posts, etc across all platforms tailored to you profile, further isolating your exposure and curating a desired and trailered illusion.
Same, as a cellular carrier. After experiencing the excessive burden of requests for data going back to the beginning of time, we just began purging all records over 12 months, even from backups. (We needed 12 months of that data for business and regulatory reasons.)
Because "special" people are special, or because it takes _SIX MONTHS_ for Google to respond? Just imagine how much longer it would take if cops requested a geofence warrant for _every_ bicycle theft.
They used them to wage lawfare and bring cases against over 1,000 peaceful protestors on Jan 6th who weren't even in the Capitol building , or even on Capitol grounds (just NEAR it). If you think this is acceptable, move to china or somewhere in the EU!
The FBI/DOJ likely used geofence info to lasso in ** THOUSANDS (maybe 100s of 10000s) ** of J6 people who visited DC & the Capitol in order to capture the grandmas and grandpas who did NOTHING VIOLENT. The cameras already caught the however many scores of people who actually broke windows and shoved/hit police, etc. That geofence data was not needed to find, arrest & prosecute these violent people. This is simply the Biden DOJ illegally using cellphone data to surveil and open intelligence files on untold 1000s of Trump supporters to politically persecute them. (Some number of FBI whistleblowers have testified to the the FBI becoming more of an intelligence operation instead of an criminal investigative one). You on the Left shouldn't be too happy that your political opponents are being gored, because when the next rightwing tyrant gets into office, YOU will be the ones in the crosshairs.
We all give up some "rights" for security. An example is , "I have a right to take what I want from you". I don't have to respect your rights, I volunteer to do so. Check with Putin for a current example.
That's a nice phrase, too bad it doesn't help. The implication would be that every citizen is to use as much force as necessary to keep police from doing what courts have said they can do. It's not helpful to tell nut jobs to "defend themselves" from police. We need to pressure our politicians and use the legal systems we have, not take it out on the street cops that are just doing what they were trained and ordered to do. We have systems for grievances against our government, and we should be promoting those, not basically telling people it's their own fault because they didn't fight with the cops. Bad advice. Fight in court, and fight in the legislature, and online. Not on the side of the road.
@@ED-es2qvNuremberg trials established that "doing one's job or following orders" is not an excuse. We are reaching the point where politics and even courts are useless or part of the problem. God bless your heart for thinking everything is just peachy.
I love getting the news with legal explanations like this. Watching these feels like being back in law school talking current events with professors before class really starts
quick reminder, the phone in your pocket has a microphone in it that is capable of listening to literally everything you say all the time, and i have the distinct feeling that doing something like going into settings and making sure location services, camera and microphone are unable to be accessed by most applications won't stop any of those things from still working without your knowledge
There's also the issue of the notorious unreliability of geocaching/geofencing. Do you know how many times I've been asked "Why does [app] say that I'm in [distant location, in a different State]" ? Source: I'm an IT worker.
At work many people in our office decided to follow the tracking data. We were shocked about how well they tracked you. Then we started noticing it's of errors in the information. Almost we everybody found major errors. Trips to other states while we knew they were in the office with their phone on them was common. Unreliable!
Actually, it wasn't the SS, it was a company that runs background checks for employment, who had access to the SS system. (Like NexusLexus). They "only" got 3B ppls data. Way over blown by MSM.
The breach was not from SSA servers. It was a from a private data information company that aggregated SSN, name, address, DOB and other info from multiple sources.
The fact that some appeals circuit courts think this was constitutional is scary. Under their reasoning, the geofence parameters could be the entire world and therefore at any time they could request to search the data of everybody on the planet with one of these blanket warrants.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, states that any powers not given to the federal government or withheld from the states are reserved for the states or the people. It is considered the final amendment in the Bill of Rights.    The Tenth Amendment has been interpreted in a few ways, including:   Limiting the federal government It clarifies that the federal government is limited and enumerated, and that it only has the powers delegated to it in the Constitution.   Prohibiting government investigations It may prohibit government decisions from being investigated as a potential infringement of civil liberties.  The Tenth Amendment has been used in several court cases, including:  United States v. Lopez: (1995)  United States v. Morrison: (2000)  National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: (2012) In this case, the court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutionally coerced states to expand Medicaid.
Don't forget, SCOTUS think civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity is a great idea. What makes you think they won't bow to the LEO request for greater abilities to catch criminals using geofencing?
This decision was against the government. I doubt that the prosecution would be so foolish as to appeal. Perhaps, in another circuit, a decision against an accused might trigger an appeal.
@@nightlightabcd Criminals trying to get out of their crimes by invoking the 4th Amendment is as it should be. The Constitution is so much more important than solving even the worst of crimes not by the Government. If the Government violated the Constitution in order to prosecute a criminal then the criminal should absolutely walk - and the government officials who violated the Constitution should go to prison in their place. If the Government doesn't want to have cases tossed then don't violate the Constitution. No matter what the Government wants or does not want - don't violate the Constitution. Period. Since the Constitution is what created the Government and is that which gives the Government any or all powers that the Government has, then you have to understand that they have no power outside of or beyond that enumerated in the Constitution - at least for the Federal Government. For people to exercise power outside of the Constitution is tyranny and only tyrants can commit tyranny. I stand against tyranny always and without exception.
The Fifth Circuit is absolutely not the place I would have expected to be the first to stand up for a privacy right. Glad they did the right thing for once.
As a resident of the state of Texas, which is within the 5th circuit, that Court has done many things that have preserved our Constittuional Rights. Whether law enforcement and government agencies follow these rulings is a whole differerent situation, and why institutions like the Institute for Justice, and FAIR exist.
@ the 5 th circuit ruled to protect corrupt public officials, big corps and the rich. The 5th historically has no regard for the rights of the peasants
Let’s not forget the old lady that got her house torn to pieces when a stolen truck was driving past during a “ping.” If if something can be abused, you can make a foregone conclusion that any government will abuse it. History repeats that, again and again.
@@tedoptional-p8l Trust is misplaced if it exists. They tell us to back the blue and so many who think they're conservatives still do. They don't realize that the Blue doesn't back you. And they do not realize that the police are nothing more or less than the armed enforcement branch of an out-of-control government.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
In the old movies they said 'round up the usual suspects.' Now it's 'round up everybody in the neighborhood.' 'Suspects, you mean?' 'Nah, just everybody.'
Law enforcement officers and departments often complain how hard it is to successfully do their job-presumably to capture and incarcerate the bad guy. Yeah, I read a couple of those thingies in the bill of rights, and I think that’s the point. The question here is, does the constitution allow for dragnets to find the suspect or do they need a suspect in order to obtain this kind of information? Should your proximity to a crime make you a suspect, or do you need to be a suspect in order to discover your proximity to a crime?
@@jpnewman1688 I think you read his statement backwards. We all agree the police often fail to do their job, or step outside their authority, and the bill of rights is designed to protect us from the government, including police, often by making them jump through hoops to do things correctly.
Need ras reasonable articulable suspicion for any crime but the "law enforcement agencies" dont care about that or the constitution so they'll continue violating both the law and constitution till we the ppl stand up(not like thats gonna happen the govt turned everyone into sheep)
6:24 Correction: disabling location services doesn’t prevent Google from tracking you. It just prevents some apps (mostly third-party apps) from collecting that data. Google is deeply embedded in most Android phones, and its privileged access allows it to track you regardless of your device settings.
If your phone is rooted, there are apps which will spoof your GPS location. But both Google and Apple are making it increasingly difficult to root. I wonder if it's viable to make a box you can stick onto your phone which will spoof GPS signals to make it look like you're elsewhere in the world. 10 am, visited the front lines of the Ukraine-Russia war. 11 am, had tea at a cafe in Paris. 12 pm, visited crocodile farm in Australia, etc.
@@solandri69 Hardware GPS scramblers are extremely illegal, and will not be a fun time when you are trying to explain why you are using one to the FBI. Best personal solution for this is a faraday bag if you are worried about this.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
Not to mention their warrantless use of Stingray devices, etc. Yea the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious expansions of gvmt power in American history.
The Stazi and KGB could only dream of the kind of surveillance capabilities that we willingly put in our pockets. It’s time to remind Government that they work for us, and that issues of constitutionality are not to be treated as an intellectual exercise only to figure out how to get around our rights.
The simplest way to understand this as a "right to privacy" issue despite the purported opt-in agreement is to flip the language of such agreements 180 degrees. If your phone or browser or other app sent you a notice that asked you "Do you want to allow us to track your location via information captured or sent from your device or browser every two minutes of every day?" the answer would be resoundingly and near-universally "NO!"
True but irrelevant. Google would have to serve these warrants even if they cared deeply about your rights. I was there when Google was a "do no evil" company but they still had to comply with the law. It's your GOVERNMENT that both doesn't give a crap about your rights AND is relevant.
When a crimes are committed and the criminal was seen or suspected of using a phone, it is NOT unjustified or unreasonable to question that person and inspect their phone!!
"Sweeping" is a value judgment, inherently somewhat subjective. I think it would have to depend somewhat on how wide the area and time restrictions a warrant application is asking for actually are. If a security camera showed a single-digit number of people walking by a jewelry store within a span of several minutes and one of them smashed the window to grab something, identifying the passersby to cross-reference against the footage of the perp probably isn't "sweeping". If it's a fishing expedition that identifies several thousand, that probably is. It gets fuzzy somewhere in between those extremes.
@@nightlightabcd What the geo-fence warrant does is to not question a suspect who was seen using a phone but, instead, to question EVERYONE who was using a phone - starting with literally everyone in the world's phone.
I worked in the telecom industry. Geofence simply is a term used to narrow the search area and exclude non relevant phones. Accuracy is generally about 6 feet (2m). Potential error is around 30 feet (10m). Persons 30 feet away from the crime scene less sus, than a person 6 feet from the crime scene.
@@nomenclature9373 Geofence is a term for starting the search with every single Android phone in the world and working down, searching every phone's geolocation data to either include or excluded them from the next round of searching.
the biggest problem with the geofence warrants that I see is that they don't include everyone at that location... just those that happened to have devices that were sharing their location data (enabled) AND were on AND didn't have an issue with location. In other words, it wouldnot include... - people using other devices (non-Android) - people who didn't have their device with them - people who had location data disabled - people who had their device such that it couldn't report locatoin (faraday cage or bag) - people who had modified their device or disabled the geolocation module such that it did not function correctly - ...possibly relevant - people using an app that can alter their location information (making it appear they were elsewhere.) So if you're trying to get a list of all the people at a location, that's a HUGE chunk of potentially MISSED suspects.... right? That being the case, how would you base your case on the subset of those who happened to be outside the above sets? "Let's get a list of all canines in the area." "That's a very, very large list...." "Yes... too large... let's limit it to dogs that have black fur" "That's a large number...." "Oh, sure... let's limit it to those in a `dangerous breed' category" "What about those that aren't deemed dangerous but are still dogs?" "Well they might not be relevant, so let's ignore them." "Ok... That's still a lot." "You're right... well let's limit it to those that didn't have any training." "Lots of people don't train their dogs formally, but can still teach them." "Right, but we'll ignore those for now..." Next thing you know they've missed all the black poodles, chiuauas, raccoons, bear, .... I can see how the geofencing can be useful, but I also see too many holes in it to be of full use. Some of those holes are big!
The actual problem might arise in a false positive coming from the investigator's need to have SOMEONE be guilty. If the investigators were diligent, they could find a clue to the real criminal or determine that no clue was found this way. It's all a matter of do we trust the investigators to do their job properly or not.
@@TimoRutanen: And, with "law enforcement" having been enabled (by "legislation from the bench"), to LIE, how much can we trust anything they present as "evidence"?!?!
@@jpnewman1688 in my mind I am my own god. With the knowledge I have acquired, I wish only to share it with others so that all are equal. May we all walk thru the valley together in knowledge in our limited time here.
What part of this video did you miss about the criminals that instigated the 'adversarial response'. Or are you someone who already has that 'Prison I.D.' Nuance and critical thinking is just SO hard.
This is a very dangerous way of investigating crimes. Everyone is a suspect and everyone is investigated until eliminated. This is so scary it nearly makes me shake inside.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
I've seen reports of people getting their geolocation data and that data showing times when location was turned off and even the phone turned off. Only removing the battery seems to help and that probably does not always work.
For denying access to information that would allow a criminal to be apprehended! I don't call that something for thumbs up! Unless you are a criminal! But I guess you like criminals! probably till you are a victim of crime!
I've always suggested, that if I'm driving through a town, at the same time a murder was committed, I'd be a pulled in as a suspect and have an arrest on my personal data... and when I go to turn OFF geo tracking on my phone it says if you turn this off it may effect other programs in your phone that may not work right...
The phone is like the intranet don't do anything you want kept secret. In the nineties I worked for the telco. Some managers who thought their spouses were cheating would program their phone line to ring at the office. They would listen in on their spouses calls. We were required to listen to lines before working on them wait for the people to get off so they would not report their phone out of service. The most dramatic call I heard was two nurses talking about how two doctors killed a patient the night before in the emergency room. While arguing about how to treat the patient he died. They were still arguing ten minutes after he died not realizing he was dead.
Interestingly, just yesterday I got notice from google that the location data will be migrated to be stored on the phone, rather than by google. That will make location collecting harder as google could still find out where the phones are but the google app will have to query the data from the phone. That will make the legal requirements even harder.
The actual issue is that it's a fishing expedition & it's been unconstitutional to do things like this for 60 yrs. In the 80's they use to gather mass phone records from AT&T & other phone companies, in the 90s they use to gather cell phone locations & pepper locations to do the same thing, & while the lower courts ruled it was constitutional SCOTUS ruled that doing mass location collecting is unconstitutional. This is what our founding fathers feared would happen, courts & government working together, to undermine constitutional rights & it's why the other branches of government have oversight powers over the courts & it's why the Military is a separate branch of government onto it's own with no court oversight
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
Very interesting case Steve. I much rather prefer to hear cases than news articles because news articles sometimes get it wrong. Keep it up and a big thumbs up to you.
@@brent5832 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Supreme Court has already ruled that someone’s presence in a high crime area doesn’t give rise to reasonable suspicion. As a result, we can apply the same standard to any device that would be on my person. Secondly, the courts have already ruled that warrants regarding someone’s location to is shaky because isn’t 100% accurate. Either you where there are you weren’t, that requires 100% accuracy.
But where would this not apply? Better not look through books of mugshots. You can't take fingerprints and search them in a database? Don't dare think of collecting DNA from the scene and checking it against any database. Guy robs a store, wearing a company coat with his last name on it - we can't search the company's employment records because we have to sort past Jones to get to Smith?
Hi Steve IPhone and Samsung when purchased are always set as every thing is automatically opted in its up to the user to go through an exhausting system to top out of a multitude of settings one by one , so describing it as an opt in system couldn't be further from the truth as well while opting out you are constantly told your phone won't work efficiently without the option you are trying to disabled
This is an excellent report. I immediately disallow ANY “Location Requesting Ability” by My Phone, My Phone’s Operating System and ANY “App” and I refuse to carry any more apps that are not absolutely necessary. Further I refuse SIRI to run under ANY circumstance. The “Map” App has a setting that ONLY allows it to get Location WHEN IT IS ON.
@@darrennew8211 "This device connected to this tower in this direction with x strength connection, and by the way there are 3 other towers in the area it connected to with the same data collected, narrowing the location down to about 3 square inches"
Please note that turning Location Services is not sufficient to preven this. Any phone that is on can be tracked by ANI/ALI when it sends its periodic high-energy radio bursts to establish contact with nearby towers. This can be more precise and accurate than GPS.
I want to know how the police give citation to these driverless cars. You can see them being pulled over for driving violations on videos, but you never see what happens afterwards. There are even videos of them fleeing from the police as well.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The Federalist No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id. It’s because of “human nature” that it’s “necessary to control the abuses of government.” Our decision today is not costless. But our rights are priceless. From the opinion.
It's not as simple as that, the service providers require to know where your phone is in relation to cell towers so they know where to switch the calls you make and receive and it's recorded because your phone can move from one tower to another while continuing a conversation. Catch 22
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 Yikes! Thank you for the information. Leave my camera home unless I really need it? My friends have to have their phones on walks. I lasted most of my life without a phone, people seem to behave like it's must have, all of the time, but it's not.
Years ago, my niece "lost" her phone and spent practically the whole looking for it because the find my phone & 2 Apple stores said it was in a apt parking lot blocks / miles away. She found it in her apartment between bed & night stand. I hope things have gotten better.
My first reaction was that they've been doing phone searches since phones came out but THAT WARRANT IS FOR A SPECIFIC LINE. This IS an unreasonable search. This is like obtaining a search warrant for your home because you MIGHT have something illegal. RE Marion County Record raid. Judges call this a fishing expedition.
This is so absurd. It doesn’t seem efficient whatsoever. Add the fact that it is often inaccurate and you have to ask yourself why they can’t just catch criminals the legal way.
Getting a warrant IS the legal way. And previous circuit courts held it as such. This is news because a different court, with equivalent standing, found otherwise.
@@dawnfire82 yeah, not really tho. It’s a reverse search warrant, similar to a general warrant, which isn’t legal. The highest court to rule on this so far, the 4th circuit, has said they are unconstitutional. Warrants must be clearly worded and neatly tailored for a reason. Why try something that has a very good possibility to blow your entire case through evidence suppression? Doing stuff like this allows actual criminals the chance to get away, and innocent people to get caught in the crossfire. It’s lazily inefficient at best.
One of the stories from the Lincoln Lawyer book series has geofencing as one of the primary plot themes! Michael Connolly is a great author who really has his stories based in our modern world!
They have multiple such "services". I get reminders for trips I made 1-7 years ago (that I've seen). I'm not sure this is coming from maps. It might be coming from GPS stamps in photos I've backed up to Google Photos. Google makes it pretty easy to scrub your historical location data. But scrubbing GPS stamps from photos is harder and something you may be reluctant to do. I'm considering moving all my photos to Amazon Prime photos, but still researching if they peek at your photos.
Hopefully, Smith will appeal to SCotUS. good faith is no excuse for an unconstitutional warrant, period. Everything obtained from those searches should be deemed fruit of the poisonous tree.
0:29 No sir. The constituents need to be up their representatives back sides demanding legislation. There will be no more laws drafted at the bench. Done. We wag the tail... not the other way around.
In the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." An incumbent US Representative or Senator is statistically more likely to pass away, resign/retire or be arrested than to be voted out of office. People whine and complain, then either pull the lever for the same incompetent crooks- or don't bother to vote at all. Granddad insisted that if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to complain about the Government until the next election.
A Supreme Court ruling would be a lot stronger and less changeable. Legislation that gets passed by one congress can easily be changed by the next congress.
So there in listening to this I think there was some judges that are up on modern tech with it's problems or really good staff that are. It's always nice to hear of judges not only knowing the law but also the flip side on how things can be abused.
There's very few phones in use which are not tracking you and your every action, and now cars are doing similar things. Your appliances are reporting on you too. The only way to stop it is to turn these things off and physically disconnect them from their power source- then of course you can't use them so they're no good to you. There's some deep truth in that last part if you think deeply enough about it.
That made me chuckle. We all know they will rule depending on political affiliation. Ex - if democrats think it's unconstitutional the SCOTUS will rule it is constitutional. 🤷♂
The description of the process actually makes me feel better about it. I'd say the major issues are: a) the original "step 1" request needs to be reasonably narrow as to time and place. b) The "deannonimizing" request needs a new warrant such that a judge has reviewed the evidence and reasoning of the investigators as to why that particular person is their person of interest.
Wasn't sure what geofenced warrants were so I looked it up and this is what it is. It's when law enforcement asks companies like Google and Apple and also app developers, who track location data from your cell phone, to give them a list of everyone in the area. I thought it referred to the older technology of asking a cell company for all the active cell phones in a particular tower that they were connected to but apparently that is passé these days. I know that Steve did eventually give more information on this but what can I say I'm impatient and I also like to have more details so if you're of that kind of person here they are. Also no shade on Steve He's fantastic IMO. Also not sure if Steve gets to it since I'm still watching the video but Google actually recently started changing location data to only be stored locally on someone's device for precisely this reason so that they don't have the history stored on their servers anymore and thus have no data to provide law enforcement.
It's surprising they don't get overwhelmed with data on their request. If my math is correct 378,000 square meters is about 93 acres or about 18 city blocks. With everybody and their cat owning a cell phone a 18 block area should turn up hundreds of hits.
That's probably why Google decided to move location history data to your device instead of their servers, they were probably just sick of the search warrants.
In Carpenter, Chief Justice Roberts stated that a cellphone contains more personal information than a person keeps in their residence unless the phone itself is inside the home. This decision made clear that cellphones are protected by the 4th Amendment and that law enforcement can't so much as shut off someone's cellphone, even if they are in custody, without first obtaining a search warrant. These geo warrants have been being issued for a while now, I find it mind boggling as to why a writ of certiorari has yet to be filed with SCOTUS.
A crime happens at a lonely country store where the next services are 20 miles away VS a store in downtown New York City ....... maybe 20 phones at the country store and 2000+ phones around the City store ! Scary to think if you live by or drive by a store or post office 10 minutes before or after a crime that the law would consider you a suspect !
These are basically the “General Warrants” which was one of our grievances against the British.
Right. Let's search houses in Boston, because somebody must have untaxed tea or letters criticizing the king.
@@toadhall5041 Almost 4000 British citizens are in prison and international internet critics are going to be arrested by British coppers for criticizing king and country today.
That is a superb point.
Sadly, MOST of today's "Americans" wouldn't understand the meaning of this post.
We've been slowing going back to the colonial ways
Imagine if law enforcement applied this level of scrutiny to congressional and judicial bribery investigations?
Go and live in Russia and China and see what freedom you have to protest
The physical locations of Congressmen and Judges isn’t usually very relevant to that. They commit crimes right at their desk in their office.
that would be treasonous! blasphemer against the sacred insider trading and holy corruption by Congress!
Or insider trading that makes them so wealthy .
I was thinking like say, who was on Epstein's island?
Imagine if We, The People, could sift through Google's location data to identify government corruption and wrongdoing.
We could. We can.
They had something called Thinthread, and it did indeed find that data, so they changed it to Trailblazer because it *did not* find _that_ data.
Sure
An organization recently bought ad data to find out who had visited the Trump shooter prior to the attempt.
@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 Could be interesting...
Cop: Where were you on the evening of May 15th?
Suspect: Google it.
Which the cop did and found that he was using his phone while committing a crime! Well done police!!
Haha😅
Or subpoena them to provide alibi
@@nightlightabcd- .meanwhile, police combed through thousands of people's personal information to do it. Have you heard of the 4th Amendment?
@@nightlightabcd The same cop also saw where you stopped at the blue oyster and blew a couple of bikers in the back alley.
No police state is complete without a healthy disrespect for we peasants and our Constitution.
RUclips specifically asked me to rate your comment this is curious
@@misterswan3131 I wonder if I should go into hiding? 🤐
You overlooked the need to disarm the peasants.
@@charlescouncill really.. But how many times did you VOTE for your masters?? 😂😂😂
now everybody are treated like different levels of inmates, but there are enough laws to make you guilty of something to get your privileges revoked if you step on the wrong toes and get you set to a smaller cell.
How this could ever be constitutional without a named suspect is baffling... This is like fishing with dynamite.
So a crime is committed in a stadium, they get a warrent that allows them to search everyone in there?
Is a camera at said stadium also not allowed to be used because it shows the mass location and identification by face of all of those in the stadium? I agree that it's scary (including the cameras), but it also makes sense that in fighting crime, tools that can be used FOR crimes will also be used to fight it.
"Someone, somewhere inside the Van Allen belts is a guilty person. Please sign this wide-open fishing warrant, your honor."
@@JH-ji6cj- A camera doesn't store people's personal data
The Legitimacy, and Power of a nation, hinges upon a monopoly on Violence - one, that the Original founders of the United states were generally opposed to establishing within the US, prefering Militia, Local police forces, and similar. This, by the way, is the basis of the Second Amendment.
Actually, if you look through history - regardless of the TYPE of government, the rise of Tyranny often goes in lock step with the rise of a professional standing army; especially a large one. When small lords, who - because of their dependence on local people, must serve and protect the interests of those people - have standing armies, they often will stand opposed to tyrranical government regardless of democratic leader, or monarch, or whatever else. When a large standing army is beholden only to the leader - that, is when you get a Tyrranical rule. But, in a case where the leader of a nation has limited power - you need a second step to transition to Tyrrany: The leaders power must be expanded, and - in a democracy at least - this often must happen slowly.
Look at the rise of 3 letter agencies, and the power they wield to enforce rules without needing specific legislation created. That, is how we got here. The longer it remains, the more normalized it becomes, and by extension - the more difficult it is to remove it.
@@Subangelis I'm not on the side of allowing, without restrictions, the use of such tools like cameras or cell phones, but I'm also not naive to the fact that the exploitation of those technologies to commit crimes will also trickle down into the use of those same technologies to attempt to curb said crimes.
Perhaps if judges didn't approve warrants at the drop of a hat...? 🤷♂️
They also drop the hat in most cases
Whaaaat, accountability for police *and* judges? That seems a bit demanding, don't you think?
Wont someone please think of the government?!
Evidence?
Are police arresting people when they have enough evidence or when they are absolutely positive of guilt? IMHO, it shouldn't be a Beta Check.
Local LE warrants are only approved about half the time. Federal warrants are approved at nearly 100% rate which is definitely a violation.
I think Google got sick of fulfilling these warrants... A few months ago I got a notice from Google that they were going to start storing my location on the device rather than on their servers and if I wanted to keep my prior history, I had to move it all to my phone by a certain date. It looks like they're changing their model to say they don't have the data so you can't serve a warrant on us anymore..
@@ponycarresurrection4401I got the same notice. It's a Google maps feature that had to be turned on manually in the Maps settings. I think it was called "trips" or "places visited"
not likely as they make bank off selling the data to third parties.
@@ponycarresurrection4401”Why Is This Happening? Privacy and Security: By storing this data on your device instead of online, your location history is more secure and private. Only you have access to this data unless you choose to back it up. Control Over Your Data: This gives you more control over your data.” literally in a communication I have from Google, genius.
@ponycarresurrection4401 They made that announcement last year
that just means they stopped getting money for it, so it's no longer profitable for google.
if I may, the problem is not that there is a split, it's that we live in a police state where corporations are more than willing to rat all their customers out to the government; the very same corporations who received a $1.5 trillion tax cut from the very same government. quid pro quo
Aaaah, it’s called a search warrant and to compare America with a police state is really, really delusional.
They usually fight the warrants, but ultimately the government forces them.
The problem is that privacy isn’t protected as well as it should be by law, and that everyone is tracked all the time and the data is collected and stored.
They're all in the same TRIBE.
Big brother is no longer just watching. Big brother is literally in your pocket listening, tracking, recording, collecting and transmitting.
Big Brother is a corporation (multiples, actually). It's faster for the govt to buy info about you than it is to get a legitimate search warrant.
NSA has eyes in the sky ears on the ground
@@farmgirl6866 Even the garden! Corn has ears and potatoes have eyes...
No one is forcing you to buy smart phones y'know.
@@gameguy1337 just like how no one is forcing these required institutions to adopt worse and worse policies for people/customers.
If police violate my rights are you just going to tell me *"No one is forcing you to be a part of society y'know"* ?
It's about time that a circuit court upholds the Constitution of the United States. The fourth amendment makes it very clear on unreasonable searches.
I also believe that fisa warrants should also be held unconstitutional. I also believe that big tech companies that allow this gross Injustice to occur, should be held financially liable.
It would send a clear message to all companies that you do not have the right to disclose personal information. Without constitutional due process!
The police using technology to apprehend criminal in no way is unreasonable! It is unreasonable to restrict police from apprehending criminals!
Tech companies cannot say no if a valid warrant is presented to them.
@@TheRealScooterGuy They can, and should, fight every warrant presented to them.
Yeah holding a limited liability entity financially responsible is effective. Power is distributed under our system and by necessity so is accountability.
It will cost more than you will recover to hold any big tech company liable for responding to a warrant.
Scary thing is, a lot of young people are so used to be tracked everywhere they go that they don't see a problem with it. It's just "normal."
I'm in my 40s. Once the next generation behind me is in office, and their are no people alive who remember what life was like before the smartphone, there's probably going to be a central system that can instantly locate any person, and predict the next 24 hours of behavior. Maybe sooner? Hope I'm very wrong.
Same thing with cameras. I walked into a bank the other day where you expect to be filmed by 5 different angles at all times. But there were cameras that felt like they were playful! There was a large lense above a TV with a faux sound bar microphone? To mimic a webcam. Isn't that cute...? And creepy.
@@Inertia888 yeah.. Let's keep VOTING for your masters then HOPE for CHANGE.. 😂😂😂
That's the way things move, and they move in this direction without the input of the ppl.
It still bothers me a lot that laws or certain practices are so much harder to change once implemented, but often long after irrepairable harm had already occurred.
@@HH-ru4bj who do you THINK are in charge of the RACKET?? 😂😂😂
And if you VOTED, you can't cry about the STUPID prizes from your masters.. 💯💯
Good to know there’s at least one court in this country that has heard of the 4th amendment
Ten years ago, the fifth would have agreed with the fourth. MAGA strikes again. This is a good thing.
It not the geofence warrant itself that is deemed unconstitutional. It is the way Google needs to retrieve the information (by accessing all user accounts) that makes the search too broad (general). If Google stores the geo information in such away it does not have to iterate over all 592 million accounts, the warrant would be valid. Meaning that it is only considered unconstitutional as long Google needs to perform these geofenced warrants by iterating over all accounts.
@@2Fast4Mellow Way to kill my optimism but that makes sense. I wonder how many people are in prison based on information provided by Google (where there was a lack of substantive evidence or credible basis for a warrant without electronic records). I would not be surprised if it was in the hundreds of thousands at any given time. Their employees are thought of as being very “progressive” and “anti-fascist” but Google as a whole is basically just a tool for mass imprisonment that happens to also have a search engine.
It's the fifth. Given their other rulings related to the fourth and fifth amendment, his is 100% a broken clock situation.
Criminals trying to use the 4th amendment to protect themselves from apprehension, prosecution conviction is unreasonable!
The only circumstance under which Google is concerned about user privacy is when Google isn’t making any money from the lack of user privacy.
@timdowney6721:
Which is why Google started putting that data back on individual devices, instead of in their database!
The days of
" 'L.E.' fishing with dynamite" may have already come, at least where Google is concerned, to its conclusion!
🧨🧨🧨🧨
Unconstitutional... I had a couple show up to my house looking for a stolen phone. They told me the phone ping in the field behind us but thought the phone would be in the house next to us. Showed me the Google picture of the house they thought they were talking about and it ended up being our us. I told them, no stolen phone here, go check the field behind our property.
Can you imagine if that was the cops? They would've probably opt-in for a no knock search warrant, no witnesses alive method, for a "stolen" phone.
No to geofence warrants.
This is a know scam btw.
@@gunnarguHow does that scam work?
Down vote. The first part of you saying it's unconstitutional, and is also a known scam, which got you the upvotes.
Then you edited your comment to add the second part, by claiming something as true without proof, to make it look like people were agreeing with both statements.
@@xpyr ok
It happened in Houston. Cops showed up with a warrant to search an elderly ladys house for a stolen tablet. One of the officers tried looking in the lady's purse. When the lady grabbed the purse reminding them it wasn't covered under the warrant they arrested her for battery on an officer. It turns out there was a cell tower next to the ladies house so cops automatically assumed she stole the tablet based on the tablets GPS pinging of that tower.
Glad to know my account was randomly searched in an investigation. Makes me feel great.
So just to be clear, not only are American police violating the privacy of a decent chunk of American's, but literally the entire world, just to catch a criminal, I thought the point was that America respected privacy.
Americans respect privacy. American police respect no one and nothing.
America is one of the least free countries on earth. Europeans for example have more rights and freedom than Americans despite their "big government."
That ship has been allowed to sail.
you forgot that many people willingly allow themselves to be spied on. those people can't be helped.
You give up your privacy voluntarily when you sign up for certain services.
Since when has the US justice system gave a damn about innocence or false positives? There are a lot of people locked up in prison for crimes they never committed.
If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t mind nowhere to hide. Said every tyrant ever!
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
@@ThatRedheddand yet, people have Alexa-type devices in their phones listening to every word they utter.
@Faretheewell608 That's a bit different, as it has nothing to do with the government. However, FedEx, on the other hand, is currently driving with plate-reader cameras on all their trucks and they contract with law enforcement to provide them the data so they have a location on every vehicle that's passed a FedEx truck.
No wonder they said it's unconstitutional. It sounds like the biggest possible fishing expedition for police ever.
How is this different than cameras scanning a street?
@skittlemenow:
It's already been pointed out by somebody else, but here goes:
"It's like 'fishing' with dynamite."! 🧨🧨🧨🧨
Working for a telco, I became acquainted with the subpoena process and how frequently used for billing records indicating calls to or from some number. I decided then and there that, were I the CEO of a telco, our stored records would be limited to those necessary for technical service (to ensure customers had the access they were paying for), stored only for so long as the technical need existed, and, of course, records regarding wiretaps established according to duly issued valid warrants. It is the customer who is buying the service, not the government, and it isn't the business of the telco, or any other common carrier, to facilitate random spying. Get a warrant! First!
@@annelarrybrunelle3570 Google hands over your data to law enforcement without a warrant. Its always under the guise of public safety. Google is not your friend. They collect and sell data.
Then your lower level company officers and shareholders vote you out for not maximizing share value 😂 Capitalism is cancer.
Agreed, the way this can is because companies store tons of data on their customers in hopes of selling that data. Memory is cheap until you are looking at data for millions of people for decades.
@@robertball3578the problem isn’t the cost of actual storage. It’s the cost of energy and the stress on the power grid. This is the major problem that’s already here. It’s why it’s so silly people get up in arms over solar or wind. They have zero clue what’s coming and it’s more then just a climate crisis. Data centers are decimating the power supply across the country. They are building more and more data centers. Look into the data centers just in rural Virginia. It’s crazy. This cost to companies is worth it as your data is the most precious resource known to man. Far more valuable then gold and oil. Every modern thought or decision you’ve made is now influenced by your own data and online habits thanks to strategic marketing, algorithms and propaganda. Every belief, opinion and decision has been influenced. This doesn’t even factor in the other countless uses and monetary considerations of your data. Your comment here is recorded and analyzed. It told them a great deal about you personally as well as the regular things like what device you’re using and where your watching this video and what other interests you had prior and after watching this video. It will also serve videos, ads, posts, etc across all platforms tailored to you profile, further isolating your exposure and curating a desired and trailered illusion.
Same, as a cellular carrier. After experiencing the excessive burden of requests for data going back to the beginning of time, we just began purging all records over 12 months, even from backups. (We needed 12 months of that data for business and regulatory reasons.)
They don't use these to solve violent crimes, they use it when someone " special" gets robbed or otherwise hurt.
See Geo Tracking and 2000 Mules. Personal Identify = names were separated for just an Activity Map lots of people Visited Drop box's ar 1am to 3 am.
This is how an inch can turn into a mile.
Because "special" people are special, or because it takes _SIX MONTHS_ for Google to respond? Just imagine how much longer it would take if cops requested a geofence warrant for _every_ bicycle theft.
They used them to wage lawfare and bring cases against over 1,000 peaceful protestors on Jan 6th who weren't even in the Capitol building , or even on Capitol grounds (just NEAR it).
If you think this is acceptable, move to china or somewhere in the EU!
The FBI/DOJ likely used geofence info to lasso in ** THOUSANDS (maybe 100s of 10000s) ** of J6 people who visited DC & the Capitol in order to capture the grandmas and grandpas who did NOTHING VIOLENT. The cameras already caught the however many scores of people who actually broke windows and shoved/hit police, etc. That geofence data was not needed to find, arrest & prosecute these violent people. This is simply the Biden DOJ illegally using cellphone data to surveil and open intelligence files on untold 1000s of Trump supporters to politically persecute them. (Some number of FBI whistleblowers have testified to the the FBI becoming more of an intelligence operation instead of an criminal investigative one). You on the Left shouldn't be too happy that your political opponents are being gored, because when the next rightwing tyrant gets into office, YOU will be the ones in the crosshairs.
If you're willing to give up your rights for security, you deserve neither.
And you'll get neither.
We all give up some "rights" for security. An example is , "I have a right to take what I want from you". I don't have to respect your rights, I volunteer to do so. Check with Putin for a current example.
That's a nice phrase, too bad it doesn't help. The implication would be that every citizen is to use as much force as necessary to keep police from doing what courts have said they can do. It's not helpful to tell nut jobs to "defend themselves" from police. We need to pressure our politicians and use the legal systems we have, not take it out on the street cops that are just doing what they were trained and ordered to do.
We have systems for grievances against our government, and we should be promoting those, not basically telling people it's their own fault because they didn't fight with the cops. Bad advice. Fight in court, and fight in the legislature, and online. Not on the side of the road.
@@ED-es2qvNuremberg trials established that "doing one's job or following orders" is not an excuse. We are reaching the point where politics and even courts are useless or part of the problem. God bless your heart for thinking everything is just peachy.
@@tedoptional-p8l what? Putin isn't an example of THE UNITED STATES . that's a completely different counter with is very own bill of rights
I love getting the news with legal explanations like this. Watching these feels like being back in law school talking current events with professors before class really starts
quick reminder, the phone in your pocket has a microphone in it that is capable of listening to literally everything you say all the time, and i have the distinct feeling that doing something like going into settings and making sure location services, camera and microphone are unable to be accessed by most applications won't stop any of those things from still working without your knowledge
AND.....The camera is taking IR (infrared) pics of you every 5 seconds sans shutter sounds turned OFF.......
Big brother is here
There's also the issue of the notorious unreliability of geocaching/geofencing. Do you know how many times I've been asked "Why does [app] say that I'm in [distant location, in a different State]" ?
Source: I'm an IT worker.
I should probably figure out how to clear that some, because it's telling me I'm somewhere I've never been.
@@vxicepickxv In most cases, you can ignore it. Most apps don't need geocaching to be perfectly accurate. Or don't need it, at all.
At work many people in our office decided to follow the tracking data. We were shocked about how well they tracked you. Then we started noticing it's of errors in the information. Almost we everybody found major errors. Trips to other states while we knew they were in the office with their phone on them was common. Unreliable!
Where Lowe’s tells you your nearest store is in Michigan but expects store delivery to be to Georgia.
especially considering the recent Social Security administration breach; when can we start treating personal information like Asbestos?
the proper question is When can we have the ability to change our Social Security #. without that ability u r owned for life from a data breach.
Actually, it wasn't the SS, it was a company that runs background checks for employment, who had access to the SS system. (Like NexusLexus).
They "only" got 3B ppls data. Way over blown by MSM.
@@bobspurloc Nah. Other countries don't have this problem, because they don't tread the national ID as a secret to start with.
The breach was not from SSA servers. It was a from a private data information company that aggregated SSN, name, address, DOB and other info from multiple sources.
It's funny how that story has morphed from 'this random company that scrapes info from the Internet and sells it was hacked' to 'the SSA was hacked.'
The fact that some appeals circuit courts think this was constitutional is scary.
Under their reasoning, the geofence parameters could be the entire world and therefore at any time they could request to search the data of everybody on the planet with one of these blanket warrants.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, states that any powers not given to the federal government or withheld from the states are reserved for the states or the people. It is considered the final amendment in the Bill of Rights.



The Tenth Amendment has been interpreted in a few ways, including:


Limiting the federal government
It clarifies that the federal government is limited and enumerated, and that it only has the powers delegated to it in the Constitution.


Prohibiting government investigations
It may prohibit government decisions from being investigated as a potential infringement of civil liberties.

The Tenth Amendment has been used in several court cases, including:

United States v. Lopez: (1995)

United States v. Morrison: (2000)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: (2012) In this case, the court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutionally coerced states to expand Medicaid.
Excellent. This needs to go to SCOTUS. Our 4th ammendment rights have been treated with too little seriousness for too long.
Actually criminals have tried to get out of their crimes by invoking the 4th, but judges are going for it!
Don't forget, SCOTUS think civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity is a great idea. What makes you think they won't bow to the LEO request for greater abilities to catch criminals using geofencing?
This decision was against the government. I doubt that the prosecution would be so foolish as to appeal. Perhaps, in another circuit, a decision against an accused might trigger an appeal.
@@nightlightabcd Criminals trying to get out of their crimes by invoking the 4th Amendment is as it should be. The Constitution is so much more important than solving even the worst of crimes not by the Government. If the Government violated the Constitution in order to prosecute a criminal then the criminal should absolutely walk - and the government officials who violated the Constitution should go to prison in their place. If the Government doesn't want to have cases tossed then don't violate the Constitution. No matter what the Government wants or does not want - don't violate the Constitution. Period. Since the Constitution is what created the Government and is that which gives the Government any or all powers that the Government has, then you have to understand that they have no power outside of or beyond that enumerated in the Constitution - at least for the Federal Government. For people to exercise power outside of the Constitution is tyranny and only tyrants can commit tyranny. I stand against tyranny always and without exception.
U think scotus is gonna work for u? Lol😂😂😂😂
The Fifth Circuit is absolutely not the place I would have expected to be the first to stand up for a privacy right. Glad they did the right thing for once.
Not standing up for the right of the peasants but the rich, big business and politicians
As a resident of the state of Texas, which is within the 5th circuit, that Court has done many things that have preserved our Constittuional Rights.
Whether law enforcement and government agencies follow these rulings is a whole differerent situation, and why institutions like the Institute for Justice, and FAIR exist.
@ the 5 th circuit ruled to protect corrupt public officials, big corps and the rich. The 5th historically has no regard for the rights of the peasants
That explains why they pushed location history back to devices recently
Lol I just commented about that. Sorry, I didn't see your post first. I think so too!
Let’s not forget the old lady that got her house torn to pieces when a stolen truck was driving past during a “ping.”
If if something can be abused, you can make a foregone conclusion that any government will abuse it.
History repeats that, again and again.
As one Congressman said in the 1960's 'power corrupts and absolute power...is really kinda neat!'
'Trust in law enforcement officials...' Hahahaha.
Generally, there is trust, but you have to keep an eye on everyone.
@@tedoptional-p8lgenerally trust is degrading as we speak.
@@tedoptional-p8l Trust is misplaced if it exists. They tell us to back the blue and so many who think they're conservatives still do. They don't realize that the Blue doesn't back you. And they do not realize that the police are nothing more or less than the armed enforcement branch of an out-of-control government.
It's called Big Brother. George Orwell tried to warn us.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
In the old movies they said 'round up the usual suspects.' Now it's 'round up everybody in the neighborhood.' 'Suspects, you mean?' 'Nah, just everybody.'
Law enforcement officers and departments often complain how hard it is to successfully do their job-presumably to capture and incarcerate the bad guy. Yeah, I read a couple of those thingies in the bill of rights, and I think that’s the point. The question here is, does the constitution allow for dragnets to find the suspect or do they need a suspect in order to obtain this kind of information? Should your proximity to a crime make you a suspect, or do you need to be a suspect in order to discover your proximity to a crime?
@@jasongarrett5437 so you THINK the gangsters are there to "serve and protect" you?? 😂😂😂
Nope! They're going to use dragnets anyway. We're DONE! The state has always intended to put it's interests ahead of us.
@@jpnewman1688 the true gangsters stand in a thin blue line
@@jpnewman1688 I think you read his statement backwards. We all agree the police often fail to do their job, or step outside their authority, and the bill of rights is designed to protect us from the government, including police, often by making them jump through hoops to do things correctly.
Need ras reasonable articulable suspicion for any crime but the "law enforcement agencies" dont care about that or the constitution so they'll continue violating both the law and constitution till we the ppl stand up(not like thats gonna happen the govt turned everyone into sheep)
6:24 Correction: disabling location services doesn’t prevent Google from tracking you. It just prevents some apps (mostly third-party apps) from collecting that data. Google is deeply embedded in most Android phones, and its privileged access allows it to track you regardless of your device settings.
It's kind of fundamental to how a cell phone works that you can tell where it is.
If your phone is rooted, there are apps which will spoof your GPS location. But both Google and Apple are making it increasingly difficult to root. I wonder if it's viable to make a box you can stick onto your phone which will spoof GPS signals to make it look like you're elsewhere in the world. 10 am, visited the front lines of the Ukraine-Russia war. 11 am, had tea at a cafe in Paris. 12 pm, visited crocodile farm in Australia, etc.
@@solandri69 Yes. The military uses such things all the time. They aren't *cheap*.
there's one phone that stop all GPS data leaving the phone once you told it to stop. the guy who made it is hiding from the US gov for some BS reason.
@@solandri69 Hardware GPS scramblers are extremely illegal, and will not be a fun time when you are trying to explain why you are using one to the FBI. Best personal solution for this is a faraday bag if you are worried about this.
Wow. 5th circuit being reasonable! Never thought I'd live long enough to see that.
Thank you for letting us all know... some of us are in the dark about this subject 😞
Thanks for the feedback!
It's good to see courts gradually starting to catch up with the implications of technology in the information age.
It’s the nature of the beast. As new technology is developed, new case law will be created and it will always lag by a considerable amount of time.
Our rights are slipping away quite quickly to cooperations.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
If they try to search me without a warrant I will refuse, go to jail, then sue.
Now I know not to carry my phone the next time I rob a mail truck!
If this crap was allowed, cops could get a warrant to any location they feel like. Rules of evidence wouldn't apply.
This crap has been allowed for at least a decade.
That warrant area request covered 96 acres.... 387000 square meters.
The feds pretty much can after the patriot act even with out this. This country has gone to shit.
Not to mention their warrantless use of Stingray devices, etc.
Yea the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious expansions of gvmt power in American history.
Police should be able to use what ever tools they can to apprehend criminals!
Sweet! Thank you for covering this!!!
The Stazi and KGB could only dream of the kind of surveillance capabilities that we willingly put in our pockets.
It’s time to remind Government that they work for us, and that issues of constitutionality are not to be treated as an intellectual exercise only to figure out how to get around our rights.
The simplest way to understand this as a "right to privacy" issue despite the purported opt-in agreement is to flip the language of such agreements 180 degrees. If your phone or browser or other app sent you a notice that asked you "Do you want to allow us to track your location via information captured or sent from your device or browser every two minutes of every day?" the answer would be resoundingly and near-universally "NO!"
Google doesn't give a crap about the people's rights
True but irrelevant. Google would have to serve these warrants even if they cared deeply about your rights. I was there when Google was a "do no evil" company but they still had to comply with the law. It's your GOVERNMENT that both doesn't give a crap about your rights AND is relevant.
@@TysonJensen In an oligarchy, companies like Google ARE the government. Treat them accordingly.
sweeping warrants is an invasion of privacy. If the warrant is for a specific subject, identified in the warrant, i can see it.
When a crimes are committed and the criminal was seen or suspected of using a phone, it is NOT unjustified or unreasonable to question that person and inspect their phone!!
"Sweeping" is a value judgment, inherently somewhat subjective.
I think it would have to depend somewhat on how wide the area and time restrictions a warrant application is asking for actually are. If a security camera showed a single-digit number of people walking by a jewelry store within a span of several minutes and one of them smashed the window to grab something, identifying the passersby to cross-reference against the footage of the perp probably isn't "sweeping". If it's a fishing expedition that identifies several thousand, that probably is. It gets fuzzy somewhere in between those extremes.
@@nightlightabcd What the geo-fence warrant does is to not question a suspect who was seen using a phone but, instead, to question EVERYONE who was using a phone - starting with literally everyone in the world's phone.
I worked in the telecom industry. Geofence simply is a term used to narrow the search area and exclude non relevant phones. Accuracy is generally about 6 feet (2m). Potential error is around 30 feet (10m). Persons 30 feet away from the crime scene less sus, than a person 6 feet from the crime scene.
@@nomenclature9373 Geofence is a term for starting the search with every single Android phone in the world and working down, searching every phone's geolocation data to either include or excluded them from the next round of searching.
the biggest problem with the geofence warrants that I see is that they don't include everyone at that location... just those that happened to have devices that were sharing their location data (enabled) AND were on AND didn't have an issue with location.
In other words, it wouldnot include...
- people using other devices (non-Android)
- people who didn't have their device with them
- people who had location data disabled
- people who had their device such that it couldn't report locatoin (faraday cage or bag)
- people who had modified their device or disabled the geolocation module such that it did not function correctly
- ...possibly relevant - people using an app that can alter their location information (making it appear they were elsewhere.)
So if you're trying to get a list of all the people at a location, that's a HUGE chunk of potentially MISSED suspects.... right?
That being the case, how would you base your case on the subset of those who happened to be outside the above sets?
"Let's get a list of all canines in the area."
"That's a very, very large list...."
"Yes... too large... let's limit it to dogs that have black fur"
"That's a large number...."
"Oh, sure... let's limit it to those in a `dangerous breed' category"
"What about those that aren't deemed dangerous but are still dogs?"
"Well they might not be relevant, so let's ignore them."
"Ok... That's still a lot."
"You're right... well let's limit it to those that didn't have any training."
"Lots of people don't train their dogs formally, but can still teach them."
"Right, but we'll ignore those for now..."
Next thing you know they've missed all the black poodles, chiuauas, raccoons, bear, ....
I can see how the geofencing can be useful, but I also see too many holes in it to be of full use. Some of those holes are big!
The actual problem might arise in a false positive coming from the investigator's need to have SOMEONE be guilty. If the investigators were diligent, they could find a clue to the real criminal or determine that no clue was found this way. It's all a matter of do we trust the investigators to do their job properly or not.
Geo-fencing is useful for tyrants only.
@@TimoRutanen:
And, with "law enforcement" having been enabled (by "legislation from the bench"), to LIE, how much can we trust anything they present as "evidence"?!?!
When govt becomes so adversarial….
@@rosewinter8693 so you THINK your masters are there for you?? 😂😂😂
And who gave them the power and consent?? GODS?? 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 in my mind I am my own god. With the knowledge I have acquired, I wish only to share it with others so that all are equal. May we all walk thru the valley together in knowledge in our limited time here.
@@jpnewman1688The government is owned by corporations.
What part of this video did you miss about the criminals that instigated the 'adversarial response'.
Or are you someone who already has that 'Prison I.D.'
Nuance and critical thinking is just SO hard.
@@JH-ji6cj I bet you VOTED for gangsters to be your masters a lot.. 💯💯😂😂😂
Thanks!
Thank you!
This is a very dangerous way of investigating crimes. Everyone is a suspect and everyone is investigated until eliminated. This is so scary it nearly makes me shake inside.
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
It still amazes me people just leave their location on, forget privacy that one setting is responsible for like a quarter of your battery drain.
I've seen reports of people getting their geolocation data and that data showing times when location was turned off and even the phone turned off. Only removing the battery seems to help and that probably does not always work.
@@dalepres1 Which is why just about every high end phone has a non removable battery.
Two thumbs up for the 5th Circuit!
A rare case where I'm willing to do that for the Fifth Circuit nowadays.
👍👍
For denying access to information that would allow a criminal to be apprehended! I don't call that something for thumbs up! Unless you are a criminal! But I guess you like criminals! probably till you are a victim of crime!
@@nightlightabcd You're only saying that because you don't understand the legal issues.
I've always suggested, that if I'm driving through a town, at the same time a murder was committed, I'd be a pulled in as a suspect and have an arrest on my personal data... and when I go to turn OFF geo tracking on my phone it says if you turn this off it may effect other programs in your phone that may not work right...
Turn it off anyway, nothing needs your location except "Maps" or "Waze."
@@ThatRedhedd Paper maps still work.
The phone is like the intranet don't do anything you want kept secret. In the nineties I worked for the telco. Some managers who thought their spouses were cheating would program their phone line to ring at the office. They would listen in on their spouses calls. We were required to listen to lines before working on them wait for the people to get off so they would not report their phone out of service. The most dramatic call I heard was two nurses talking about how two doctors killed a patient the night before in the emergency room. While arguing about how to treat the patient he died. They were still arguing ten minutes after he died not realizing he was dead.
Interestingly, just yesterday I got notice from google that the location data will be migrated to be stored on the phone, rather than by google.
That will make location collecting harder as google could still find out where the phones are but the google app will have to query the data from the phone. That will make the legal requirements even harder.
The actual issue is that it's a fishing expedition & it's been unconstitutional to do things like this for 60 yrs. In the 80's they use to gather mass phone records from AT&T & other phone companies, in the 90s they use to gather cell phone locations & pepper locations to do the same thing, & while the lower courts ruled it was constitutional SCOTUS ruled that doing mass location collecting is unconstitutional.
This is what our founding fathers feared would happen, courts & government working together, to undermine constitutional rights & it's why the other branches of government have oversight powers over the courts & it's why the Military is a separate branch of government onto it's own with no court oversight
Too many people don't know, or invoke, their rights with police. So many talk without an attorney, or consent to a vehicle search, or hand over ID when no crime is suspected. Our rights are subject to a policy of "Use 'em or Lose 'em!"
Cameras do somewhat the same.
Do courts have to reimburse a company
..if it costs a company money to comply with a warrant?
Cops pay up front if company chooses to charge a fee.
No bigger slap in the face than hearing _These are patently unconstitutional... _*_exceeeeeeeeeept_*_ in _*_YOUR_*_ case!_
Very interesting case Steve. I much rather prefer to hear cases than news articles because news articles sometimes get it wrong. Keep it up and a big thumbs up to you.
Don’t carry your phone while committing crime, folks.
@@brent5832 don't you know you are committing crimes by just THINKING?? 💯💯😂😂😂
@@brent5832 did you know you can be detained indefinitely without trial in 🇺🇸 since 2011?? 💯💯😂😂😂
@@brent5832 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Local Sheriff running for election was bragging about setting up plate readers all around town to track people when crimes had occurred.
Don't carry your phone when someone else is committing a crime within a 3 mile radius
Your car is also tracking you unless you have an old car
Really.. I bet you have a phone that's smarter than you and goes wherever you go.. 💯💯😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688ad hominem attacks are unproductive. Especially when they’re based on conjecture.
The only way your car tracks you if it doesn’t have built in gps is by your phone
@wardraven8755 your car sensors detecting air pressure in your tires make noise and can be tracked.
@@BadDadio He's a troll. That's what he does.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that someone’s presence in a high crime area doesn’t give rise to reasonable suspicion. As a result, we can apply the same standard to any device that would be on my person.
Secondly, the courts have already ruled that warrants regarding someone’s location to is shaky because isn’t 100% accurate. Either you where there are you weren’t, that requires 100% accuracy.
And here, we have courts ruling opposite of each other. It needs to be resolved by SCOTUS.
@@stevelehto oh, I agree. Anytime we can get case law from the Supreme Court is a plus. That’s why I love the work done by the Institute of Justice.
But where would this not apply? Better not look through books of mugshots. You can't take fingerprints and search them in a database? Don't dare think of collecting DNA from the scene and checking it against any database. Guy robs a store, wearing a company coat with his last name on it - we can't search the company's employment records because we have to sort past Jones to get to Smith?
But supreme court has also already shown they are willing to ignore precedents. I’d saw its a dice roll whether they stick to it.
Hi Steve IPhone and Samsung when purchased are always set as every thing is automatically opted in its up to the user to go through an exhausting system to top out of a multitude of settings one by one , so describing it as an opt in system couldn't be further from the truth as well while opting out you are constantly told your phone won't work efficiently without the option you are trying to disabled
This is an excellent report.
I immediately disallow ANY “Location Requesting Ability” by My Phone, My Phone’s Operating System and ANY “App” and I refuse to carry any more apps that are not absolutely necessary. Further I refuse SIRI to run under ANY circumstance.
The “Map” App has a setting that ONLY allows it to get Location WHEN IT IS ON.
This might be one of the only rulings from the 5th Circuit that I actually concur with.
Yes!! They’re usually so draconian and deferential to authorities.
Society seems to lean toward ignoring the collateral damage from LE.
OH Nooo!!!! I’ve been so damaged by the phone company ‘not’ finding my cellphone was near a crime! I’m soooo, sooo damaged. 🤦♂️
Whether you have location set on your phone or not, the phone companies know what towers you are using and can easily figure out where you are/were.
Newer tech makes this harder and harder. Since CDMA (aka LTE) it's very hard to know much beyond "this person connected to that cell tower."
@@darrennew8211 "This device connected to this tower in this direction with x strength connection, and by the way there are 3 other towers in the area it connected to with the same data collected, narrowing the location down to about 3 square inches"
Please note that turning Location Services is not sufficient to preven this. Any phone that is on can be tracked by ANI/ALI when it sends its periodic high-energy radio bursts to establish contact with nearby towers. This can be more precise and accurate than GPS.
Holy cow, this is an amazing court opinion. I'm impressed. How can someone willing to put an opinion like this out have survived in the system?
Still curious on why driverless cars don’t need a drivers license 😂
People who code driverless cars don't need a drivers license! Isn't that messed up?
@@TheWBWoman I agree! That means a person who can't drive is telling a car how to drive? LOL!
I want to know how the police give citation to these driverless cars. You can see them being pulled over for driving violations on videos, but you never see what happens afterwards. There are even videos of them fleeing from the police as well.
@@nwflagudatit9944
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
They do. The companies putting them on the road have to have permission. That's a license.
It's about damn time!
Really.. Let's keep VOTING for your masters then BEG for CHANGE.. 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 You must be lost
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The Federalist No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id. It’s because of “human nature” that it’s “necessary to control the abuses of government.”
Our decision today is not costless. But our rights are priceless.
From the opinion.
All Jan 6 protesters should be released based on this. Come on Supreme Court!!!
How is geofence any different from what Ford Motor Company is proposing and recently patented??
So, turn off the location finder? I don't care for the idea of someone tracking me in any way. Old school.
It's not as simple as that, the service providers require to know where your phone is in relation to cell towers so they know where to switch the calls you make and receive and it's recorded because your phone can move from one tower to another while continuing a conversation. Catch 22
They collect it anyway. Your car probably does too.
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 Yikes! Thank you for the information. Leave my camera home unless I really need it? My friends have to have their phones on walks. I lasted most of my life without a phone, people seem to behave like it's must have, all of the time, but it's not.
@@roflchopter11 My car doesn't have a built in GPS I don't think but it's a scary idea. At least it is to me.
@@williezar2231 👍🏻
OMG! Could the courts finally be catching up to the modern problems with the Third Party Doctrine?
Another reason NOT to have a cell-phone. I stick to a land-line.
Too easily tapped. I put my faith in two cocoa cans and a length of string.
Payphones FTW!
what’s a land line 😂
@@anthonyluisi7096 You must have been born after 2000. Ask your granddad.
Years ago, my niece "lost" her phone and spent practically the whole looking for it because the find my phone & 2 Apple stores said it was in a apt parking lot blocks / miles away. She found it in her apartment between bed & night stand. I hope things have gotten better.
My first reaction was that they've been doing phone searches since phones came out but THAT WARRANT IS FOR A SPECIFIC LINE. This IS an unreasonable search. This is like obtaining a search warrant for your home because you MIGHT have something illegal. RE Marion County Record raid. Judges call this a fishing expedition.
This is so absurd. It doesn’t seem efficient whatsoever. Add the fact that it is often inaccurate and you have to ask yourself why they can’t just catch criminals the legal way.
I did the math that geofence warrant search area covered 96 acres....😳
@@rolanddeschain965 if that’s even remotely accurate it’s that much more absurd.
Also, nice username, gunslinger.
Getting a warrant IS the legal way. And previous circuit courts held it as such. This is news because a different court, with equivalent standing, found otherwise.
@@dawnfire82 yeah, not really tho. It’s a reverse search warrant, similar to a general warrant, which isn’t legal. The highest court to rule on this so far, the 4th circuit, has said they are unconstitutional. Warrants must be clearly worded and neatly tailored for a reason. Why try something that has a very good possibility to blow your entire case through evidence suppression? Doing stuff like this allows actual criminals the chance to get away, and innocent people to get caught in the crossfire. It’s lazily inefficient at best.
One of the stories from the Lincoln Lawyer book series has geofencing as one of the primary plot themes! Michael Connolly is a great author who really has his stories based in our modern world!
Google shows where I went in the past month. I must sleep drive a lot, because places I haven't gone to in years show up.
They have multiple such "services". I get reminders for trips I made 1-7 years ago (that I've seen). I'm not sure this is coming from maps. It might be coming from GPS stamps in photos I've backed up to Google Photos. Google makes it pretty easy to scrub your historical location data. But scrubbing GPS stamps from photos is harder and something you may be reluctant to do. I'm considering moving all my photos to Amazon Prime photos, but still researching if they peek at your photos.
Hopefully, Smith will appeal to SCotUS. good faith is no excuse for an unconstitutional warrant, period. Everything obtained from those searches should be deemed fruit of the poisonous tree.
0:29 No sir. The constituents need to be up their representatives back sides demanding legislation. There will be no more laws drafted at the bench. Done. We wag the tail... not the other way around.
Oh no, you don’t get how constitutional arguments work.
Wouldn't that be a lovely world?
In the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." An incumbent US Representative or Senator is statistically more likely to pass away, resign/retire or be arrested than to be voted out of office. People whine and complain, then either pull the lever for the same incompetent crooks- or don't bother to vote at all. Granddad insisted that if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to complain about the Government until the next election.
A Supreme Court ruling would be a lot stronger and less changeable. Legislation that gets passed by one congress can easily be changed by the next congress.
It's always the people who get their rights violated not the elites.
So there in listening to this I think there was some judges that are up on modern tech with it's problems or really good staff that are. It's always nice to hear of judges not only knowing the law but also the flip side on how things can be abused.
There's very few phones in use which are not tracking you and your every action, and now cars are doing similar things. Your appliances are reporting on you too. The only way to stop it is to turn these things off and physically disconnect them from their power source- then of course you can't use them so they're no good to you. There's some deep truth in that last part if you think deeply enough about it.
I hope SCOTUS rules for freedom on this.
This court routinely rules against citizen freedoms in favor of government and corporations. Forget it. This ruling will be overturned.
Really.. I bet you VOTED for your masters then BEG for CHANGE a lot.. 💯💯😂😂😂
That made me chuckle. We all know they will rule depending on political affiliation. Ex - if democrats think it's unconstitutional the SCOTUS will rule it is constitutional. 🤷♂
SCOTUS ruling for freedom, that’s funny!!😂
black - I don't hope for ANYTHING from SCOTUS any more.
We need term limits, a code of ethics, non-political appointments ...
The description of the process actually makes me feel better about it. I'd say the major issues are: a) the original "step 1" request needs to be reasonably narrow as to time and place. b) The "deannonimizing" request needs a new warrant such that a judge has reviewed the evidence and reasoning of the investigators as to why that particular person is their person of interest.
Interesting discussion Steve. Thanks for the analysis.
Wasn't sure what geofenced warrants were so I looked it up and this is what it is. It's when law enforcement asks companies like Google and Apple and also app developers, who track location data from your cell phone, to give them a list of everyone in the area. I thought it referred to the older technology of asking a cell company for all the active cell phones in a particular tower that they were connected to but apparently that is passé these days. I know that Steve did eventually give more information on this but what can I say I'm impatient and I also like to have more details so if you're of that kind of person here they are. Also no shade on Steve He's fantastic IMO. Also not sure if Steve gets to it since I'm still watching the video but Google actually recently started changing location data to only be stored locally on someone's device for precisely this reason so that they don't have the history stored on their servers anymore and thus have no data to provide law enforcement.
It's surprising they don't get overwhelmed with data on their request. If my math is correct 378,000 square meters is about 93 acres or about 18 city blocks. With everybody and their cat owning a cell phone a 18 block area should turn up hundreds of hits.
That's probably why Google decided to move location history data to your device instead of their servers, they were probably just sick of the search warrants.
J6 warrant ⁉️⁉️⁉️
If I remember correctly the government also set up their own “ghost” cell phone tower that peoples phones connected to unbeknownst to them.
In Carpenter, Chief Justice Roberts stated that a cellphone contains more personal information than a person keeps in their residence unless the phone itself is inside the home. This decision made clear that cellphones are protected by the 4th Amendment and that law enforcement can't so much as shut off someone's cellphone, even if they are in custody, without first obtaining a search warrant. These geo warrants have been being issued for a while now, I find it mind boggling as to why a writ of certiorari has yet to be filed with SCOTUS.
A crime happens at a lonely country store where the next services are 20 miles away VS a store in downtown New York City ....... maybe 20 phones at the country store and 2000+ phones around the City store ! Scary to think if you live by or drive by a store or post office 10 minutes before or after a crime that the law would consider you a suspect !
so dont take your cellphone to rob a bank its not like your going to want to call an Uber for the getaway
You'd think that but people have used uber for that...
He was likely using the phone to communicate with the getaway car.