Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect.

Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
This approach is throwing out the baby with the bath-water. A virtual fence warrant has realistic applications and justifiable situations for an actual warrant, but this was not one of them.

The available information should have ruled out the person involved as he was just traveling by (presumably ~ 12 MPH or so) which any rational person looking at the data would recognize as not matching the "profile" of another hypothetical person who would have been inside the house for an extended period of time.
If this had been a "visual siting" request warrant:
a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house and not stopping. No judge would issue a warrant for Allen.
b) John also saw Carl inside the house for 30 minutes and then leave the house, with the timing coinciding the robbery time window. A judge WOULD issue a warrant (or at least agree there is probable cause for questioning Carl) based on this eye-witness account.

The problem is not the government having ANY access to company recorded information. Even today, if John were a milkman who made those notes in his corporate notebook, such information would easily be reasonable to discuss with the police. It's not the information (or the government acquiring ANY of it) which is the problem.



That's an unreasonable over-reaction to the situation.
Translation: Freedom or safety? I'll take safety, of course!

Too bad you won't have either one in reality.
 
Nov 2005
10,128
5,499
California
Translation: Freedom or safety? I'll take safety, of course!
Too bad you won't have either one in reality.
As I pointed out earlier, very binary thinking.
And without surprise, you failed to address anything I said. If you have to boil down the situation to binary answers, then you are already demonstrating a failed approach.

Can you try to address my hypothetical scenario?
Or do you understand that your binary thinking would not be able to address it, because you insist on approaching the situation in a binary manner?

The available information should have ruled out the person involved as he was just traveling by (presumably ~ 12 MPH or so) which any rational person looking at the data would recognize as not matching the "profile" of another hypothetical person who would have been inside the house for an extended period of time.
If this had been a "visual siting" request warrant:
a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house and not stopping. No judge would issue a warrant for Allen.
b) John also saw Carl inside the house for 30 minutes and then leave the house, with the timing coinciding the robbery time window. A judge WOULD issue a warrant (or at least agree there is probable cause for questioning Carl) based on this eye-witness account.

Our historical warrant system requires probable cause and anybody should be able to recognize that a bicyclist driving by the house in question does not present probable cause to go through his information.

The problem is not the government having ANY access to company recorded information. Even today, if John were a milkman who made those notes in his corporate notebook, such information would easily be reasonable to discuss with the police. It's not the information (or the government acquiring ANY of it) which is the problem.
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
As I pointed out earlier, very binary thinking.
And without surprise, you failed to address anything I said. If you have to boil down the situation to binary answers, then you are already demonstrating a failed approach.
Yes, you did say it earlier.

It is not necessary to repititively chastise me at the beginning of every reply before you get to the point. I may have to start enforcing my coin flip rule again.

Can you try to address my hypothetical scenario?
Or do you understand that your binary thinking would not be able to address it, because you insist on approaching the situation in a binary manner?

The available information should have ruled out the person involved as he was just traveling by (presumably ~ 12 MPH or so) which any rational person looking at the data would recognize as not matching the "profile" of another hypothetical person who would have been inside the house for an extended period of time.
If this had been a "visual siting" request warrant:
a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house and not stopping. No judge would issue a warrant for Allen.
b) John also saw Carl inside the house for 30 minutes and then leave the house, with the timing coinciding the robbery time window. A judge WOULD issue a warrant (or at least agree there is probable cause for questioning Carl) based on this eye-witness account.

Our historical warrant system requires probable cause and anybody should be able to recognize that a bicyclist driving by the house in question does not present probable cause to go through his information.

The problem is not the government having ANY access to company recorded information. Even today, if John were a milkman who made those notes in his corporate notebook, such information would easily be reasonable to discuss with the police. It's not the information (or the government acquiring ANY of it) which is the problem.
My problem with your hypothetical is how does the government know in the first place that Allan rode by the house?

If I understood correctly, it was by getting a warrant for all the info collected by google on the area during a given time frame.

The lawyer, Caleb Kenyon, dug around and learned that the notice had been prompted by a “geofence warrant,” a police surveillance tool that casts a virtual dragnet over crime scenes, sweeping up Google location data — drawn from users’ GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular connections — from everyone nearby.

So it is not at all the same as someone reporting to police that they saw a guy ride past a location. The police got a warrant to demand information on everyone who traveled nearby.

I don't mind giving google access to my location so I can use google maps. If they see I went to Whataburger and target advertising based on that, I don't care. I told someone on here that I had heard good things about Arizona and now I'm getting invitations on my gmail account to lectures in my fields at ASU. I don't care, maybe I'll get something I'm interested in instead of nonsense.

But give it to police so police can have more suspects without having to do legwork? To hell with that. Police don't look for the perpetrator, they look for the person they can most easily make the case against. I hear stats like XX percent of murders are committed by close family members and I think 'who else do police ever look at?'

They find out I went to Whataburger three times in the week before it was robbed by a guy in a car the same model and color as mine and that's all they need. They'll put me in a line up, tell the witness to "look closely at number four" and Im done. Juries are very easy for the prosecutor to sway.

No, thanks, Mr. Police State.

If I can't figure out how to turn that off, I'll get a new phone and buy a Key Map.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
42,268
30,801
La La Land North
That's why you can't say it is discredited.

It hasn't been tried, and probably never will be tried because government is too good a racket to pass up. "You've got a nice little place here. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it," will always be a successful sales pitch.

Also, on my previous forum which was supposed to be for libertarians, I started to wonder whether libertarianism will never happen because it goes against human nature. For every human with a strong desire to control others, there are nine with a desire to be led.

That was probably the best ratio for our tribal ancestors or there would have been literally "too many chiefs." For that one out of a hundred oddball that saw no pleasure in controlling others, nor benefit to being controlled, they could easily strike out on their own and be left alone.

The only way such people could ever achieve a society that would leave them alone would be to band together which goes against their nature.

But I'll keep advocating for more freedom just like the Greenies, the New Reformers, the commies who haven't simply turned over their whole agenda to the Democrats advocate for what they want.
So only you and a very, very limited number of other gifted individuals have the wisdom and foresight to be able to see through all the things we of humbler intellect see as gross weaknesses and socially evil aspects of libertarianism and thus keep proclaiming its wonderfulness.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Clara007
Dec 2015
21,288
22,316
Arizona
Please tell us this. If Libertarianism is such an awesome, brilliant idea.......why are there NO Libertarian countries?
Anywhere in the world.
There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195--- if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to even one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.
If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
AND BTW, the internet is chocked full of information like this but of course you'd rather believe in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.

Are you ready for this? So if you read the above.....but maybe THEN you did not read Seymour's reply.....and this is just TOO hysterically funny for words. Ready?
Here it is:
"That's why you can't say it is discredited."

He's got a point--but what a WHOPPER---you can't discredit something that never existed, although he's positive it's a sure thing--a successful Libertarian country?? Just when I think I've seen it all.
Yeeee--doggies.
 
Nov 2018
6,692
4,186
Rocky Mountains
SeymourF has a computer that transmits his location with every use and a cell phone that broadcasts similarly without even being used and he is concerned about privacy?
It is no different from riding past a camera in someone's front yard on a bicycle. Is that an invasion of privacy?
Seems like if you want privacy, you should give up transmitting electronic devices.
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
SeymourF has a computer that transmits his location with every use and a cell phone that broadcasts similarly without even being used and he is concerned about privacy?
It is no different from riding past a camera in someone's front yard on a bicycle. Is that an invasion of privacy?
Seems like if you want privacy, you should give up transmitting electronic devices.
Neither of those are invasions of privacy.

The invasion of privacy comes when government demands that information at gunpoint.
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
Are you ready for this? So if you read the above.....but maybe THEN you did not read Seymour's reply.....and this is just TOO hysterically funny for words. Ready?
Here it is:
"That's why you can't say it is discredited."

He's got a point--but what a WHOPPER---you can't discredit something that never existed, although he's positive it's a sure thing--a successful Libertarian country?? Just when I think I've seen it all.
Yeeee--doggies.
Hardly fair, Clara.

You said yourself that it has never been tried.

I went on to give a detailed explanation of why it would likely never happen, which is literally the opposite of saying that I'm positive it's a sure thing.
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
So only you and a very, very limited number of other gifted individuals have the wisdom and foresight to be able to see through all the things we of humbler intellect see as gross weaknesses and socially evil aspects of libertarianism and thus keep proclaiming its wonderfulness.
Not even close to what I said, RNG.
 
Nov 2018
6,692
4,186
Rocky Mountains
Neither of those are invasions of privacy.

The invasion of privacy comes when government demands that information at gunpoint.
You travel in public shouting your ID electronically and you think that should be private?
If you want privacy, remain in private circumstances. I suppose you oppose traffic cameras as well.
There is "privacy" and there is absurdity... you are being absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66