Back in March, as it investigated a spate of armed robberies across Portland, Maine, the FBI made an astonishing, unprecedented request of Google. The feds wanted the tech giant to find all users of its services who’d been within the vicinity of at least two of nine of those robberies. They limited the search to within 30-minute timeframes around when the crimes were committed. But the request covered a total space of 45 hectares and could’ve included anyone with an Android or iPhone using Google’s tools, not just the suspect.
The FBI then demanded a lot of personal information on affected users, including their full names and addresses, as well as their Google account activity. The feds also wanted all affected users’ historical locations.
Outside of concerns around government overreach, the FBI’s remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off.
The court warrants unearthed by Forbes indicate some at the FBI believe they have a right to that location data too, even if it belongs to innocents who might be unwittingly caught up in invasive government surveillance. And the government feels such fishing expeditions are permissible; it issued the warrant on Google without knowing whether or not the suspect used an Android device or any of the company services at all.
Nathan Wessler, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Forbes it was unlikely the average user of Google services would know such government searches were even possible. “I think it’d be surprising to learn that Google and other tech companies kept these kinds of records that are searchable ... to help find people at a specific location at a specific time.
“People should have an understanding of what data is being collected of theirs and how they can protect it.”
Marina Medvin, an attorney and founder of Medvin Law, said the warrant amounted to “a completely indiscriminate search of a large group of people.”
Despite limiting the search to users who’d been at two of the locations within certain timeframes, Medvin said the government didn’t go far enough. “This is a general search, which is prohibited under our Constitution. It is not particularized, a legal prerequisite to obtain a warrant under U.S. law,” she said. “The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the particularity requirement is to make general searches impossible and to prevent ‘a general, exploratory rummaging.’
“Yet, general, exploratory rummaging of a bunch of people who visited these places is exactly what would result if such a warrant were executed successfully.” (Forbes, August 15, 2018)
--
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.