Tech giant Google is at the center of the FBI’s largest use of a controversial form of search warrants that the federal law enforcement agency used to identify thousands of individuals inside and around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Leveraging Google’s constellation of data points in its location history technology on mobile phone devices, the government is able to place these devices with pinpoint accuracy. Combining GPS coordinates, Wi-Fi, and even Bluetooth accessibility, investigators can incredibly place a phone within a few yards.
In comparison, search warrants issued to phone companies that utilize cell tower infrastructure to triangulate a device’s location are only accurate within three-quarters of a mile.
Often referred to as a “dragnet” search, these geofence search warrants work by targeting a specific geographical place during a certain time frame. All devices that ping a location history meeting those parameters are then given over to the police.
While Google received over 11,000 of these so-called “geofence” search warrants in 2020 from law enforcement across the country, their use by the FBI in the January 6 investigation is without public precedent.
Since geofence search warrants have exploded onto the scene, their use has raised serious privacy questions for the public.
“There’s always collateral damage,” said Jake Laperruque, senior policy counsel for the Constitution Project at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. He went on to explain that due to their inherently broad scope, these types of warrants expose people who have committed no criminal activity to police scrutiny.
The use of geofence warrants has ballooned by well over 1,100% since 2018, when law enforcement nationally only requested 941 geofence search warrants from Google.
Possibly even more alarming is that a recent court filing on January 6 of defendant David Rhine’s case suggests that even phones set to “airplane mode” can be identified through a geofence search warrant.
Furthermore, records show that individuals who took the steps to delete their location history on their devices were still identified and then received higher scrutiny by the FBI in its investigations.
For its part, Google has vigorously defended its willingness to hand over data to law enforcement, which may include individuals who have committed no crime whatsoever, according to a statement on geofence search warrants.
“We have a rigorous process for geofence warrants that is designed to protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement,” Google said. “When Google receives legal demands, we examine them closely for legal validity and constitutional concerns, including overbreadth, consistent with developing case law.”
“If a request asks for too much information, we work to narrow it. We routinely push back on overbroad demands, including overbroad geofence demands, and in some cases, we object to producing any information at all,” the company concluded.
Regarding January 6, the FBI requested all devices within a four-acre area, which included not just the U.S. Capitol but its surroundings, and for between 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. that day. It then narrowed that data using a number of other requests from Google to rule out Capitol staffers, police, and other authorized personnel.
Through this process, the FBI identified 1,535 Google users and had maps of their movements in the targeted areas throughout the time window.
The geofence evidence has been cited in over 100 charging documents from January 6 thus far, with more likely to come.
Rhine’s attorneys have made a motion to suppress the geofence evidence against their client, citing privacy and First Amendment concerns.
“The government enlisted Google to search untold millions of unknown accounts in a massive fishing expedition,” his attorneys wrote in the motion. “Just a small amount of Location History can identify individuals … engaged in personal and protected activities (such as exercising their rights under the First Amendment). And as a result, a geofence warrant almost always involves intrusion into constitutionally protected areas.”
What the judge decides will have an extremely profound impact not just on directly related cases but the use of these tactics by law enforcement for the foreseeable future.
Does it mean that they provide also info about pelosi conspiracy in it and others who were involved in preventing police or military to be there? Again bias. Don’t trust big tech.
Then throw all of your phones and computers in the trash. Why would the speaker of the house have nothing to do with calling in the military. Man, you people are just straight up unintelligent.
If there was a Nobel prize for bias you would be a frontrunner. With your capacity for thought how can you say anyone is unintelligent?
I’m not throwing out the blanket statements that we should all not trust big tech. Seriously, at least my thoughts are original and I’m not echoing Tucker Carlson. The only way to not “get tracked” or whatever you conspiracy theorists claim is to throw out all of your tech and live off the grid. The solution is simple. The fact that your mind can’t grasp that thought makes your lack of intelligence very eveident.
You have an abusive law enforcement agency using the hanging juries commonly found in Washington DC to further advance the US towards a totalitarian state where anti-government protest is heavily punished if the government is not progressive. The FBI has refined its terrorist activities to include armed early-morning raids with SWAT teams to arrest trespassers. There is no question this is a political prosecution and investigation. There was no such investigation when ANTIFA rioted and burned buildings in Washington DC for the Trump inauguration.
So a group of people that tried to overthrow our democratic processes on behalf of the president they prefer aren’t committing acts of treason and acts very similar to what happens under totalitarian rulers?
I mean, so you even grasp that you your argument contradicts itself?
I’m surprised you can read with such faulty logic.
“Tried to overthrow the government”. That statement singularly would classify what happened as the lamest coup in history. How many buildings were burned? Cars destroyed? Lives lost other than 1? And that 1 was an unarmed woman! Unlike Ferguson, Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas, and other cities, where lives were lost and millions in property damages occurred, for you to say what you did would classify you as the singular, heads and tails above any other person, biggest snowflake or top Soros paid propagandist! So which one are you?
The people that illegally entered our nation’s Capitol attempted to stop our democratic processes in order to keep their chosen candidate in office. Please use a dictionary and lookup sedition, treason, criminal trespass, etc. it’s all right there.
Yes, rioters or other people that committed crimes during a protest should be processed according to the law. I don’t give them a pass either.
I’m not a snowflake. You people still crying about who legitimately lost an election two years ago are the snowflakes.
Soros? Oh, man. Do smoke meth and live in a trailer, while wearing a tinfoil hat? Guess who owns Fox News and is a conservative, Rupert Murdoch. There is conservative media out there. Idiots.
The fact that you all can’t see your own contradictions is astounding. How do you even function in life?
Your statements are loaded with hyperbole and the rantings of “snowfakery”. You need to look up sedition again because there’s brain matter too thick sculled for what I wrote about your “sedition” to soak in.
Sorry. You don’t know the definition of hyperbole. You are clearly unintelligent.
You are a snowflake
No. Snowflakes are you people still crying that your candidate lost an election two years ago. Snowflakes whine and cry. And I make fun of them which is why I make fun of you. Idiot.
Is the life of a Democrat troll fun or does it just pay well?
Trolling you morons makes me smile ear to ear. Hahahaha!
BTW, I am an independent. I know. Hard concept to grasp because I don’t scapegoat a single party or person.
Instead of blabbering useless falsehoods, why not consider wondering WHY the true police (Federal Park Police) of the area were sent home and the DC police replaced them prior to all this? That happened LONG before the police began the riot by attacking people who were just hanging out together.
You might also read the information of witnesses that all was calm and peaceful and that police began SHOOTING peaceful people DIRECTLY with tear gas bullets and beating heads AIMING AT THIER HEADS.
BTW it is UNLAWFUL for any LEO to attempt to shoot such weapons DIRECTLY at a person as it is extremely dangerous.
BTWE there are hundreds of hours of video, the PEOPLE are NOT allowed to see ANY OF IT unless it is released in a trial and edited of anything but specific moments of activity.
meanwhile one DC officer beat a woman with his club for almost 5 minutes. Every time she passed out he picked her up and beat her some more. Instead of being fired he was advanced in rank. All totally illegal and dangerous.
Just as long as they round up all the Domestic terrorist Trumpers, I’m OK with it.
So the ANTIFA terrorists are ok?
I bet you think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer don’t you!
Maybe. Maybe not. But we are smarter than you. That’s for damn sure. Hahahaha
My question is how do the judges come to their *conclusions: read what Dr. Krakauer says about science and algorithms.
will algorithms rule science Dr. David Krakauer – Google Images
*specifically
What is this nonsense? Who is this doctor? An algorithm is part of mathematics. Mathematics is a science.
Vot about these your majesty!
Where Are All The Hidden Dimensions?
The Archaeology of Symbols – jstor
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
History is Now: Publishing
Like Life Itself, Sustainable Development is Fractal
Sorry. I don’t speak in meth.
I am Leblanc; you are Billy Fox!
[ You actually do. ]
Self-Image and Schadenfreude: Pleasure at Others’ Misfortune Enhances Satisfaction of Basic Human Needs – Google Images
bajnok holograph
I am unsure of my understanding of this article. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court as well as District courts have already determined that blanket search warrants are unlawful. Is this because someone is considering this “new technology” a different animal from any other?
Clearly the Founding Fathers were CLEAR and SPECIFIC in making it CLEAR that the right to privacy in freedom of movement and in goods and personal effects are forbidden to be invaded. just because a third party holds that information does not make it less private.
I am getting an iPhone and getting away from Google and deleting chrome if it is on the device. The government always grabs low hanging fruit…..Google is leftist and low hanging.
I am beginning to wonder if someone can look at the documents that the government gave Google and past docs….if it is the same kind of demand that previously was denied then it is a political move by Google.