Friend
Professional
- Messages
- 2,653
- Reaction score
- 838
- Points
- 113
The court's decision restricts the collection of location data.
A federal appeals court in the United States has ruled illegal geofence warrants that allow law enforcement agencies to obtain user location data without a specific suspect.
The decision was made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The court found that the geofence warrant is contrary to the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Many human rights organizations and privacy advocates have welcomed the decision, as it restricts the use of controversial warrants across the three US states. It is important to note that geofence warrants allow the police to map out a specific area, such as a crime scene, and require companies such as Google to provide data on all devices that were in the specified area at a particular time.
Critics have long argued that such warrants violate the Constitution, as they can affect information about completely innocent people who fall into the specified zone by accident.
It is worth noting that the court's decision contradicts the recent verdict of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, where the court recognized the legality of geofence warrants, ruling that access to users ' location data does not constitute a search.
In its decision, the Fifth District Court concluded that the request for data from Google is indeed a search. Such warrants cannot be legal, as they do not allow identifying a specific person before conducting a search, which is not sufficient from the point of view of the Constitution.
The court case focused on the investigation of the armed robbery of a U.S. Postal Service employee in Mississippi in February 2018, when police used a geofencing warrant to identify suspects. However, despite declaring the geofencing warrants illegal, the court upheld the conviction in this case, finding that the police acted in good faith in obtaining the warrant. The police consulted with other agencies before submitting the request, which the court considered as an extenuating circumstance.
This decision raises important questions about the legitimacy of any online data acquisition orders. Since the largest technology companies, such as Google, Uber, Snap and others, store huge amounts of data about their users, law enforcement agencies actively use them in investigations. However, such methods may contradict the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
Google, for its part, has already taken steps to reduce the effectiveness of such warrants, announcing its intention to store users ' location data directly on devices, which will significantly complicate law enforcement's access to information in the future.
For the first time, an appeals court in the United States has considered a case on the use of geofencing orders in California. Then the court ruled that the order to obtain information about the location of all devices in the Los Angeles area violates US law.
Source
A federal appeals court in the United States has ruled illegal geofence warrants that allow law enforcement agencies to obtain user location data without a specific suspect.
The decision was made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The court found that the geofence warrant is contrary to the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Many human rights organizations and privacy advocates have welcomed the decision, as it restricts the use of controversial warrants across the three US states. It is important to note that geofence warrants allow the police to map out a specific area, such as a crime scene, and require companies such as Google to provide data on all devices that were in the specified area at a particular time.
Critics have long argued that such warrants violate the Constitution, as they can affect information about completely innocent people who fall into the specified zone by accident.
It is worth noting that the court's decision contradicts the recent verdict of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, where the court recognized the legality of geofence warrants, ruling that access to users ' location data does not constitute a search.
In its decision, the Fifth District Court concluded that the request for data from Google is indeed a search. Such warrants cannot be legal, as they do not allow identifying a specific person before conducting a search, which is not sufficient from the point of view of the Constitution.
The court case focused on the investigation of the armed robbery of a U.S. Postal Service employee in Mississippi in February 2018, when police used a geofencing warrant to identify suspects. However, despite declaring the geofencing warrants illegal, the court upheld the conviction in this case, finding that the police acted in good faith in obtaining the warrant. The police consulted with other agencies before submitting the request, which the court considered as an extenuating circumstance.
This decision raises important questions about the legitimacy of any online data acquisition orders. Since the largest technology companies, such as Google, Uber, Snap and others, store huge amounts of data about their users, law enforcement agencies actively use them in investigations. However, such methods may contradict the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
Google, for its part, has already taken steps to reduce the effectiveness of such warrants, announcing its intention to store users ' location data directly on devices, which will significantly complicate law enforcement's access to information in the future.
For the first time, an appeals court in the United States has considered a case on the use of geofencing orders in California. Then the court ruled that the order to obtain information about the location of all devices in the Los Angeles area violates US law.
Source