Geofence warrants are legal tools that allow law enforcement to obtain location data from tech companies like Google for all cell phones that entered or left a specific geographic area during a defined time frame, rather than targeting specific suspects. This broad surveillance capability raises significant privacy concerns, as it can collect data on hundreds of innocent people who merely happened to be in the area, potentially violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Google receives over 25% of all warrants it processes in the US, and the number of geofence warrants has been increasing since 2018. Critics argue these warrants function as 'dragnets' that gather information on unspecified individuals rather than following evidence, and at least one case has resulted in the wrongful arrest of an innocent person.
Geofence Warrants and Mass Surveillance: Privacy Risks Explored
Added:Google is constantly tracking you.
And in some cases, releasing your location data to the police What could possibly go wrong?
Welcome to America Uncovered.
I’m Chris Chappell.
Hey, so have you ever been tracked by your cell phone?
Of course you have!
We all have.
If you have a cell phone, and especially if you have a smartphone, your phone sends out all kinds of information about you….
...that can end up in the hands of a lot of different people.
And that’s not all.
Individual apps also often track user locations.
We live in a world of constant surveillance, and most of us probably don’t even think about it.
After all, it happens passively, in the background.
Like that ghost that’s sitting behind you right now.
Don’t look!
You’ll startle them.
We often agree to let our phones track us.
Because who really reads those mile-long privacy agreements, right?
And even if you specifically go out of your way to block permission, that doesn’t always prevent tracking and data collection.
And that data is valuable.
It’s valuable to advertisers.
It’s valuable to politicians.
And it’s valuable to law enforcement.
This information isn’t new.
That last headline is from 2012.
Which is around the same time that NCIS thought computer police work looked like this.
Two people on one keyboard means they can type twice as fast!
Laws regarding cell phone privacy are constantly being reinterpreted, like with this Supreme Court decision from 2018 that ruled warrants were required in order to obtain cell phone location data.
Wait, they didn’t need a warrant for that until 3 years ago?
So for years, police were free to figure out I spent every Saturday night at home, alone, rewatching ‘Gilmore Girls?’ That’d be humiliating if anyone ever found out about it.
Back in August, Google released information that puts a whole new spin on these warrants.
It turns out law enforcement increasingly uses so-called “geofence warrants” to obtain location history information from Google.
And that threatens privacy across the US.
So what are geofence warrants, and how do they threaten your privacy?
I’ll tell you after the break.
Welcome back.
Recently, Google released a report on the growing use of “geofence warrants,” and it’s gotten some attention from the media.
But what are “geofence warrants”?
Let’s start with a “geofence”.
Is that some kind of rock gate or a digital cage for Tamagotchis?
It’s way less fun than that.
A geo-fence is a virtual fence around a geographical area.
Any cell phone entering that area triggers the geofence, which can be used for a lot of different things.
Like giving you super localized advertising.
So *that’s* how they can always show me the sexy singles in my area.
Here’s an example of super localized advertising: A standard Gap poster ad was placed at bus stations in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago.
And anyone waiting at the bus stop who opened the Words With Friends app immediately saw a Gap ad on their phone...along with a coupon for a discount.
And I know what you’re thinking: someone who still plays Words With Friends *and* shops at the Gap?
Leave some sexy singles in the area for the rest of us, you Chad.
In the Gap geofencing example, the Gap posters had put an invisible “fence” around the bus stop that prompted any cell phone in the area to show Words With Friends users the Gap ad and the coupon.
The ad campaign was pretty successful, apparently.
Who could have predicted that?
I’ll tell you who.
The dystopian sci-fi movie Minority Report that came out nearly 20 years ago.
Tom Cruise’s character walks into a Gap, and gets localized advertising.
Too real.
Of course, advertising is always the first thing technologies like this are used for.
But after advertising uses it, then the political groups get a whiff of it.
In that case, an organization called CatholicVote was putting geofences around Catholic churches in Wisconsin and using the geofences to get information about any phones that entered.
So remember kids, when you’re on your phone instead of paying attention in Mass, God isn’t the only one who knows what you’re looking at.
The information CatholicVote got was specific enough that they were able to match owners of the churchgoing phones to voter rolls and figure out which ones weren’t registered to vote.
Then, of course, came the campaign to get those people registered, with the assumption that a majority of them would vote for Trump.
And, yes, Democrats do it, too.
The point is, geofences have a lot of practical applications, from advertising to politics to instilling even *more* guilt in Catholics.
And then there’s what the police want to use it for.
Geofence warrants use geofencing to help solve crimes.
With a “geofence warrant,” law enforcement specifies a geographical area and a time frame to obtain information about all of the cell phones that entered or left that area during that time.
The particular geographical area is usually the scene of a crime.
The time frame is usually an hour or two surrounding the time the crime occurred.
This is different from a standard warrant.
A standard warrant only lets law enforcement get information about a specific suspect.
For example, it might allow police to search that suspect’s home, car, or cell phone, or it might allow police to get cell phone information about that specific user from a phone company.
Normally, to get a warrant, police must establish that they have “probable cause” to suspect the individual.
Geofence warrants are different.
They allow police to get information about *everyone* who entered or left a specific area.
That means that the information they get is often on multiple people, perhaps even hundreds—people who are not necessarily suspects for any reason, other than they just happened to walk by.
So if you live in New York City, that means you’ve likely walked by hundreds of crimes, making you a perpetual person of interest.
That must be why all those sexy singles in your area are so into you.
And that’s also why a lot of watchdog groups are concerned.
About privacy, not the sexy singles.
Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which promises to defend civil liberties in the digital world.
They say that geofence warrants threaten civil liberties and free speech rights.
Google is the number one company law enforcement go to for geofence warrants.
Because any detective that wants to see what people are looking up on AskJeeves should be forcibly retired, since they’re obviously in their 90s.
But it’s not just Google.
Police could go to any of the big tech companies, like Apple, Facebook, or Microsoft for these geofence warrants.
And even Pokemon GO.
Which I’m fine with, since not even an entire SWAT team could take down my Charizard.
There’s no centralized database or oversight for geofence warrants, so there is little information available on how often they’re used, when they’re used, or which tech companies receive them.
However, Microsoft specifically stated in 2020 that it “does not and would not be in a position to comply with any warrants seeking such information.” Meanwhile, Apple told the New York Times in 2019 that it did not have the ability to perform those searches.
That article also cited investigators who said they had not sent geofence warrants to any companies other than Google.
And it makes sense why.
Google is the undeniable master of location data.
Google owns the widely used Android Smartphone Operating System.
It also owns Google maps, which we all use even on iPhones.
Because everyone knows Apple Maps sucks.
In 2009, Google introduced a feature called Location History, which does...exactly what it says it does.
It tracks a user’s location history, which allows users to see not only where they are, but also where they’ve been and receive shopping or dining suggestions and traffic notifications.
It’s also probably led to countless divorces.
“*That’s* where you were at 3AM?!” Between the Android OS and various apps, Google has access to location data for millions of Android and Apple phone users.
And all that data is kept in a massive database.
According to the 2019 New York Times article, employees call it Sensorvault.
Which sounds like something Joe Rogan sleeps in at night.
Sensorvault is why law enforcement look to Google to carry out a “geofence warrant”.
According to the Google report, more than 25% of all warrants received by Google in the US are geofence warrants.
And the number of geofence warrants received has grown since 2018, as well.
So should we be worried?
Are we entering a dystopian surveillance state?
Are we already in one?
Stop laughing at us, Australia.
We’re scared we might become you.
We’ll talk about that after the break.
Welcome back.
Should we be worried?
Are geofence warrants really all that bad?
Well, there are some serious concerns.
First, since a geofence warrant allows police to gather information about unspecified multiple phones at once, there are some concerns about privacy and due process.
I don’t need the police knowing how many ABBA songs are on my Spotify playlist.
If you’re curious, the answer is… not enough.
Some are calling the warrants a “dragnet” that goes fishing for possible suspects rather than following the evidence and seeing where it leads.
And there are also concerns about whether or not the warrants violate the fourth amendment.
The “probable cause” for a geofence warrant is often focused on the location of the crime rather than a specific suspect, arguably making it an “unreasonable search.” In addition, there has been at least one case where a geofence warrant resulted in the arrest of a man who was later shown to be innocent.
He later sued the police for his wrongful arrest.
That man wasn’t convicted, but he did lose his job after being arrested at work.
He spent six days in jail, and had to pay to get his car back after it was impounded by the police.
The only time anyone should be arrested at work and have their car impounded is when an Uber driver plays you their mixtape when you’re just trying to get home from the office, ok?
Further, there have been some reports of geofence warrants being used to gather data on protesters.
Which has definitely sparked some concerns.
Finally, the data police get from Google simply isn’t 100% accurate or informative.
One person can log in to more than one device, so they look like they’re in more than one “place” at once.
And the location tracking itself isn’t perfectly accurate, as anyone who has ever used Google maps can tell you.
“What do you mean, “proceed to the route?” I’m already here!” As one lawyer for a falsely accused man said, “they’re hyping it up to be this new DNA type of forensic evidence, and it’s just not.” So yeah.
Geofence warrants are invasive and broad.
Like a proctologist with wide knuckles.
Which is probably why some judges have become cautious about signing off on them.
And why, as of 2020, some federal courts were finding them unconstitutional.
And why lawmakers in New York pushed to make them illegal in 2020.
And why my Charizard started wearing an ACAB shirt.
His opinion, not mine.
But, to be fair to Google, they don’t just hand over all of the data they have on everyone in the geofenced area.
Instead, they give the police information using anonymous ID codes.
Only after police have determined that an individual ID code matches their other evidence will Google give them individual, personal information.
Google’s Director of Law Enforcement and Information Security, Richard Salgado, is happy to answer questions about Google’s involvement with geofence warrants.
But his answer is always the same: “We vigorously protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement.
We developed a process specifically for these requests that is designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed.” And you know we can trust Google.
They’re the good guys.
The ones whose motto is “Don’t be evil”.
Sorry, was.
It was, until 2018 when they removed that from their code of conduct.
So...we probably shouldn’t completely rely on Google to protect us from government surveillance.
Or anything, since evil is apparently back on their menu.
The trail of data we leave behind isn’t going anywhere.
As technology improves, our digital fingerprints will only grow.
And the police always will make use of the evidence available to them.
That’s their job.
It may come down to us—citizens and voters—to balance new law enforcement techniques with the right to privacy.
That might include supporting laws that ensure that a warrant gives police permission to investigate individual suspects, not geographical areas.
Because the only people who think an invasion of privacy on that level is a good idea, are the people who think that police computer work looks like this.
So what do you think?
Are geofence warrants a threat to civil rights?
Let us know in the comments.
And remember, America Uncovered is mainly supported by viewers like you, so head on over to our Patreon page, patreon.com/americauncovered.
Once again, I’m Chris Chappell.
Thanks for watching America Uncovered.
Up Next
Federal Court: Warrant Required for Border Device Searches
@stevelehto
80.5K views•2024-07-28
Young Thug YSL Trial: Legal Arguments on RICO Evidence and Confrontation Clause Issues in Court
@11Alive
13.7K views•2024-05-16
Forensic Phonetics: Speaker Identification in Legal Cases
@nptel-nociitm9240
539 views•2025-03-19
Police Interrogation Tactics: False Confessions & Legal Reform
@LastWeekTonight
7M views•2022-04-18
Related Study Plans & Knowledge Roadmaps
Structured learning paths in Law