- Nov 2005
So now if you feel "chastised", that's an excuse for you to ignore people's statements and questions?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.
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.
As I stated: "a) John saw Allen riding his bike by the robbed house ..."My problem with your hypothetical is how does the government know in the first place that Allan rode by the 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.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.
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.
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.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 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.
So your solution to "lazy" is to just put up road-blocks? Make it harder to catch crooks?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.
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.