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

Nov 2005
10,128
5,499
California
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.
So now if you feel "chastised", that's an excuse for you to ignore people's statements and questions?
:rolleyes:

You do what you feel you gotta do. As I've already told you, I'm not going to lose any sleep if you choose not to reply to my post.
Especially when you're making a point of not replying to my point.


My problem with your hypothetical is how does the government know in the first place that Allan rode by the house?
As I stated: "a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house ..."
For all intents and purposes, the police could simply be questioning the milkman (i.e. John) regarding what he saw since his route puts him in the area at the time of the robbery.

John would tell the police:
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.


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.
You're missing the overview here.
John is analogous to Google.
Google's data can clear Allen as their data puts Allen as riding by the house, without stopping.

Or, to take it a step further and make the two scenarios more closely overlap, John simply says that Allen was in the area and nothing more. Any judge in his right mind would not grant a warrant based solely on that information.
Moreover, it would be damn sloppy of the police to press for a warrant without asking for more details to realize that John saw that Allen never went into the house but instead simply rode past it.

The real problem is that ANY REAL LIFE ANALOGY that would compare a third party's knowledge of the situation and the available information from the third party would not allow for a warrant on Allen just cause he drove by the house.


In YOUR scenario, if John actually saw both Allen drive by and Carl go inside the house, both Allen and Carl would be treated the same regarding a warrant, which is ridiculous.
I am simply asking for a common sense parallel to be applied so that a realistic evaluation of probable cause for a warrant can be evaluated. Under the given situation (in the article), common sense is thrown out the window.
In YOUR assessment, common sense is thrown out the window and into a landfill in the neighboring country as even Carl cannot be examined...


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.

The geofence warrant is not, in and of itself, the problem. You are not appreciating that the "geofence warrant" is simply the analogy equivalent of John taking notes as to what he saw and withholding that information.

Suppose instead of electronic data, John was in the area at the time of the robbery and he took extremely detailed notes on what he saw.
The police show up to investigate. They recognize John was in the area so his information is obviously qualifying for "probable cause".
In such a situation, legal action could easily be taken with John since it is known he has relevant information and refuses to share it. The "geofence warrant" is simply the acquisition of relevant information.


Moreover, there are already mechanisms to protect the police from IRRELEVANT information. The real problem in this scenario is that Allen would have to go to court to contest a warrant for his Google information, even though it's easily demonstrable that it's irrelevant.


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?'
The "legwork" comments fit well into my scenario, as the description provided demonstrates exactly how that "legwork" suits a lazy approach instead of an intelligent approach.

The implication of your approach is that company people could never share relevant data for an honest and intelligent approach to finding the criminal.
Forcing Allen to go to court to keep his information private because the cops / John were too lazy (or purposefully obtuse) to avoid addressing the fact that Allen never even stopped there => that's lazy / purposefully obtuse.


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.
So your solution to "lazy" is to just put up road-blocks? Make it harder to catch crooks?
That makes no sense.

At least with the existing situation, Allen's identity is protected up until a crucial point where it is not because somebody either got lazy or was purposefully obtuse. Allen's situation involves something that in a real world corollary would never get a warrant.

Your approach is to insist that the government cannot even acquire any information in the first place. There is no real world corollary for that.
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
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.
For the government to demand the travel information of everybody who passed by a certain area is a perfect ca
 
Nov 2005
10,128
5,499
California
For the government to demand the travel information of everybody who passed by a certain area is a perfect ca
Your phrasing is too loose so that it fails to appreciate the reality of the situation.
Your phrasing doesn't explain how that travel information exists.

In a generic situation, if the government were to blindly demand the travel information of everybody who passed by a certain area, that would be a grotesque over-reach.

But what we have here is existing, recorded evidence of everybody who in fact did pass by that area. As Biff pointed out, like a "traffic camera".

If there was a bank surveillance system that covered the side-walk and somebody was shot right in front of that surveillance system and the system also recorded the killer, you can be damn sure the recording would be covered under a warrant.
Similarly, there are other electronic records that are kept which can also document who was in the area.
When such records already exist, then there should be some level of cooperation which both protects rights and allows for "probable cause" to be acknowledged.

Your approach blindly throws probable cause out the window.
 
Feb 2006
15,760
4,321
California

Stuff like this where both parties are complicit in ignoring our rights disgust me. It's not even a talking point for either party. Not even a discussion item. Both sides are simply on-board with trampling on our rights.
It's sad!

For the solution CLICK HERE

And
HERE
 
Feb 2020
1,725
634
Houston
So now if you feel "chastised", that's an excuse for you to ignore people's statements and questions?
:rolleyes:

You do what you feel you gotta do. As I've already told you, I'm not going to lose any sleep if you choose not to reply to my post.
Especially when you're making a point of not replying to my point.
Heads.

I ignore the personal stuff and answer your substance.

Your lucky day, ifoundit!

As I stated: "a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house ..."
For all intents and purposes, the police could simply be questioning the milkman (i.e. John) regarding what he saw since his route puts him in the area at the time of the robbery.

John would tell the police:
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.



You're missing the overview here.
John is analogous to Google.
Google's data can clear Allen as their data puts Allen as riding by the house, without stopping.

Or, to take it a step further and make the two scenarios more closely overlap, John simply says that Allen was in the area and nothing more. Any judge in his right mind would not grant a warrant based solely on that information.

Moreover, it would be damn sloppy of the police to press for a warrant without asking for more details to realize that John saw that Allen never went into the house but instead simply rode past it.

The real problem is that ANY REAL LIFE ANALOGY that would compare a third party's knowledge of the situation and the available information from the third party would not allow for a warrant on Allen just cause he drove by the house.
But they did get a warrant just because of the logic that someone must have gone by the house. Correct logic, but an not a justification for a warrant. But they got one anyway.


In YOUR scenario, if John actually saw both Allen drive by and Carl go inside the house, both Allen and Carl would be treated the same regarding a warrant, which is ridiculous.
Not in my scenario, in what actually happened.

If google recorded that Allen drove by and Carl went into the house, the warrant applies to both of them and both would have a chance to oppose the warrant. If Allen thinks, 'I'm innocent, no reason to worry,' but Carl thinks, holy crap, I better get my lawyer on this, Allen will be the only suspect left.

I am simply asking for a common sense parallel to be applied so that a realistic evaluation of probable cause for a warrant can be evaluated. Under the given situation (in the article), common sense is thrown out the window.
In YOUR assessment, common sense is thrown out the window and into a landfill in the neighboring country as even Carl cannot be examined...



The geofence warrant is not, in and of itself, the problem. You are not appreciating that the "geofence warrant" is simply the analogy equivalent of John taking notes as to what he saw and withholding that information.

Suppose instead of electronic data, John was in the area at the time of the robbery and he took extremely detailed notes on what he saw.
The police show up to investigate. They recognize John was in the area so his information is obviously qualifying for "probable cause".
In such a situation, legal action could easily be taken with John since it is known he has relevant information and refuses to share it. The "geofence warrant" is simply the acquisition of relevant information.


Moreover, there are already mechanisms to protect the police from IRRELEVANT information. The real problem in this scenario is that Allen would have to go to court to contest a warrant for his Google information, even though it's easily demonstrable that it's irrelevant.
So, how do you get police to stop asking for demonstrably irrelevant information? They want to be the judges of what is relevant or not and these rubber stamp judges let them do it.

The "legwork" comments fit well into my scenario, as the description provided demonstrates exactly how that "legwork" suits a lazy approach instead of an intelligent approach.

The implication of your approach is that company people could never share relevant data for an honest and intelligent approach to finding the criminal.
Forcing Allen to go to court to keep his information private because the cops / John were too lazy (or purposefully obtuse) to avoid addressing the fact that Allen never even stopped there => that's lazy / purposefully obtuse.
No, if the company had information that a person went into a house that was buglarized at the time it was burglarized, they could report that to the police. But for police to get a warrant to request a person's records to see if anyone was in the area is what happened and it is absurd.

So your solution to "lazy" is to just put up road-blocks? Make it harder to catch crooks?
That makes no sense.
They did not catch the crook in that case. They interrupted the life of an innocent man and I assure you they do not care about that.

At least with the existing situation, Allen's identity is protected up until a crucial point where it is not because somebody either got lazy or was purposefully obtuse. Allen's situation involves something that in a real world corollary would never get a warrant.
Allen's identity was compromised the moment his name was given to the police. He as put in a situation in which he feared arrest, had to get a lawyer and will likely never be able to get all the information about the investigation that he was subjected to.

Your approach is to insist that the government cannot even acquire any information in the first place. There is no real world corollary for that.
I'm going to let you have the last word, because I sense that's what this has turned into.

Write as much as you want, though. I promise I'll read whichever part wins the flip.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
6,692
4,185
Rocky Mountains
It's sad!

For the solution CLICK HERE

And
HERE
You get your picture taken at an ATM or with security cameras at the mini-mart, have your possessions with radio frequency tag tracked as you leave Walmart, have your picture taken, or a continuous video taken, when you use the self-checkout at Home Depot and Lowes (I think), your phone continuously triangulates with cell towers, traffic cameras record your picture and license plate and when you park on a public street citations are issued if there is a discrepancy between your plate and the record of cars on the street; when you go through the airport screening, you get a body x-ray, etc. etc.
Privacy does not exist in public places.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child
Feb 2006
15,760
4,321
California
You get your picture taken at an ATM or with security cameras at the mini-mart, have your possessions with radio frequency tag tracked as you leave Walmart, have your picture taken, or a continuous video taken, when you use the self-checkout at Home Depot and Lowes (I think), your phone continuously triangulates with cell towers, traffic cameras record your picture and license plate and when you park on a public street citations are issued if there is a discrepancy between your plate and the record of cars on the street; when you go through the airport screening, you get a body x-ray, etc. etc.
Privacy does not exist in public places.
Agreed!

 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66
Nov 2005
10,128
5,499
California
But they did get a warrant just because of the logic that someone must have gone by the house. Correct logic, but an not a justification for a warrant. But they got one anyway.
Regarding the warrant for the information which would show who was in the vicinity of the house ...
If they had restricted their focus to just people who went into the house at the time of the robbery, that would have been valid.

Extending the warrant to anybody who was just in the area? Out of line.


Not in my scenario, in what actually happened.
If google recorded that Allen drove by and Carl went into the house, the warrant applies to both of them and both would have a chance to oppose the warrant. If Allen thinks, 'I'm innocent, no reason to worry,' but Carl thinks, holy crap, I better get my lawyer on this, Allen will be the only suspect left.
You are accurate that is what actually happened.


So, how do you get police to stop asking for demonstrably irrelevant information? They want to be the judges of what is relevant or not and these rubber stamp judges let them do it.
I agree that's what they want.
The real problem is that with electronics, the police and the law have changed the rules as compared to if a person had just watched and observed people doing things.

Allen - Innocent bike rider:
1) In an analogy where he was viewed riding his bike by, the police would never have been able to get a warrant for his info.
2) In reality when using Google data, a warrant could be obtained unless Allen came forth and explicitly fought it. We should make sure that the warrant requirements are the same between these two scenarios.

Carl - Actually went into the house around the time of the robbery:
1) In an analogy where he was viewed going into the house, the police would have been able to get a warrant for his info.
2) In reality when using Google data, a warrant could be obtained unless Carl came forth and explicitly fought it. In this situation, Carl is answering questions in court.


No, if the company had information that a person went into a house that was buglarized at the time it was burglarized, they could report that to the police. But for police to get a warrant to request a person's records to see if anyone was in the area is what happened and it is absurd.
I don't know if we (or one of us) confused our previous focus / comments, but I agree with your statement here.

To elaborate on my perception, therefore for the government to ask Google for info on who was in the house at the time of the burglary is sound and viable. Coverable by a warrant against Google (if they refused to cooperate).


They did not catch the crook in that case. They interrupted the life of an innocent man and I assure you they do not care about that.
Again, I agree with your statement here.

Note: Posting this for now but getting back to your last comments later...
 
Nov 2005
10,128
5,499
California
Allen's identity was compromised the moment his name was given to the police. He as put in a situation in which he feared arrest, had to get a lawyer and will likely never be able to get all the information about the investigation that he was subjected to.
To me, a minor quibble in that Allen's identity was not provided to the police by Google.
Regardless, the rest of what happened and what Allen had to do was crap.