ACLU, Public Defenders Push Back Against Google Giving Police Your not due to the accompanying documents or post hoc narrowing by law enforcement or a private company.164164. See Brewster, supra note 82. Lab. See, e.g., Transcript of Oral Argument at 44, City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010) (No. Because it is rare to search an individual in the modern age. The bill would also ban keyword searches, a similarly criticized investigative tactic in which Google hands over data based on what someone searched for. Spy Cams Reveal the Grim Reality of Slaughterhouse Gas Chambers. between midnight and 3:00 a.m.), which further limited the warrants scope.171171. See, e.g., In re Search Warrant Application for Geofence Location Data Stored at Google Concerning an Arson Investigation (Arson), No. Presumably, this choice is because the search requested by the government seems limited on the warrant applications face to the specific geographic coordinates and timestamps provided. Ct. May 9, 2018), https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/764-fdlelocationsearch/d448fe5dbad9f5720cd3/optimized/full.pdf [https://perma.cc/TSL6-GFCD] (issuing an indefinite nondisclosure order); Amanda Lamb, Scene of a Crime? It turns out that these warrants are so invasive of user privacy that big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are willing to support banning them. McCoy didn't think anything unusual had happened that day. Last . Courts have already shown great concern over technologies such as physical tracking devices,9797. 531, 551 (2005) (emphasis added). While some explain this practice by pointing to the Stored Communications Act,5959. As a result, geofence warrants are general warrants and should be unconstitutional per se. The WIRED conversation illuminates how technology is changing every aspect of our livesfrom culture to business, science to design. Geofence warrants help police find suspects using Google. A ruling