Today, 4/27/2026, the Supreme Court with hear arguments in Chatrie v.
United States, about police use of geofence warrants to sweep up massive amounts of location data justified to a judge that a crime occured and
we need to know everyone's location in the immediate vicinity of the
crime in case one of them was the perpetrator.

It's not a problem for anyone else as if they are innocent, they have
nothing to hide from police, right?

There are several problems. We used to have Supreme Court justices like
Kennedy and Scalia who were skeptical of modernizing 18th century
concepts of privacy and liberty in light of police use of modern
technology. I forget the case, but the two of them voted against
allowing police to search the interior of a building without a warrant,
without setting foot on the premisis, using industrial infrared
technology.

But we've long had decisions that searches of third-party records, like
a telephone company's call data, was not a privacy violation.

Google knows everything. In this case, the briefs touch upon who has
location services enabled in one's cell phone and, therefore, has no
reasonable expectation of privacy. But Google doesn't like it because to
comply with a geofence warrant, they must search billions of records to
find the ones covered by the warrant, so it's not merely searching a
limited number of records any more.

Also, private companies simply broker massive amounts of location data
that was not collected based on whether location services are enabled.
Location services aren't voluntary anyway. A user could disable it but
it could be re-enabled without consent. But data brokers are selling to
police location data from cell tower telemetry and triangulation, since
this is exactly how cell phones work. It's a really good location
estimate and sometimes gives near real time information.

We know ICE and CPB use it to find the location of cell phones of aliens
that they would target.

No matter what the ruling here is, the genie is already out of the
bottle and there is too much personal data for sale for there to be any
privacy from anyone who buys it, whether it's criminals, marketers, or
police.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5777656/supreme-court-geofence-warrants https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/digital-location-data-heads-back-to-the-supreme-court-/

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:01:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Today, 4/27/2026, the Supreme Court with hear arguments in Chatrie v.
United States, about police use of geofence warrants to sweep up massive >amounts of location data justified to a judge that a crime occured and
we need to know everyone's location in the immediate vicinity of the
crime in case one of them was the perpetrator.

And if none of them were the perpetrator do they expand the geofence?
What's the maximum size a judge should allow? Limited only by the
ability of the police to work through the data?

It's not a problem for anyone else as if they are innocent, they have
nothing to hide from police, right?

That's the same argument I see being made for all of the Flock
cameras. A year ago there was only one across the street from my place
that had been there for years. Now I was looking around and there are
at least five of them watching the streets within a half mile of me.
That doesn't count the ones at the Home Depot or other businesses.

But we have nothing to hide, right? It's not like they ever get
anything wrong like misreading someone's license plate and thinking
the driver has a warrant for their arrest when they don't.

There are several problems. We used to have Supreme Court justices like >Kennedy and Scalia who were skeptical of modernizing 18th century
concepts of privacy and liberty in light of police use of modern
technology. I forget the case, but the two of them voted against
allowing police to search the interior of a building without a warrant, >without setting foot on the premisis, using industrial infrared
technology.

But we've long had decisions that searches of third-party records, like
a telephone company's call data, was not a privacy violation.

Google knows everything. In this case, the briefs touch upon who has
location services enabled in one's cell phone and, therefore, has no >reasonable expectation of privacy. But Google doesn't like it because to >comply with a geofence warrant, they must search billions of records to
find the ones covered by the warrant, so it's not merely searching a
limited number of records any more.

What person thinks about or even knows that their location is
available to anyone with access to that information?

Also, private companies simply broker massive amounts of location data
that was not collected based on whether location services are enabled. >Location services aren't voluntary anyway. A user could disable it but
it could be re-enabled without consent. But data brokers are selling to >police location data from cell tower telemetry and triangulation, since
this is exactly how cell phones work. It's a really good location
estimate and sometimes gives near real time information.

That's one of the main problems with the Flock cameras. Turns out they
are recording all the time and that information is available online.
Worse, much of it is available for anyone to see. Live or
pre-recorded.

We know ICE and CPB use it to find the location of cell phones of aliens
that they would target.

No matter what the ruling here is, the genie is already out of the
bottle and there is too much personal data for sale for there to be any >privacy from anyone who buys it, whether it's criminals, marketers, or >police.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5777656/supreme-court-geofence-warrants >https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/digital-location-data-heads-back-to-the-supreme-court-/

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 27, 2026 at 6:16:58 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:01:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Today, 4/27/2026, the Supreme Court with hear arguments in Chatrie v.
United States, about police use of geofence warrants to sweep up massive
amounts of location data justified to a judge that a crime occured and
we need to know everyone's location in the immediate vicinity of the
crime in case one of them was the perpetrator.

And if none of them were the perpetrator do they expand the geofence?
What's the maximum size a judge should allow? Limited only by the
ability of the police to work through the data?

It's not a problem for anyone else as if they are innocent, they have
nothing to hide from police, right?

That's the same argument I see being made for all of the Flock
cameras. A year ago there was only one across the street from my place
that had been there for years. Now I was looking around and there are
at least five of them watching the streets within a half mile of me.
That doesn't count the ones at the Home Depot or other businesses.

Well, that's actually the point, isn't it? Every time you step out of your house, you're on so many cameras-- from people's doorbells to every single business on every street-- that complaining that any one of them violates your privacy is close to nonsensical.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 27, 2026 6:16:58 AM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:01:53 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Today, 4/27/2026, the Supreme Court with hear arguments in Chatrie v. >>>United States, about police use of geofence warrants to sweep up massive >>>amounts of location data justified to a judge that a crime occured and
we need to know everyone's location in the immediate vicinity of the >>>crime in case one of them was the perpetrator.

And if none of them were the perpetrator do they expand the geofence? >>What's the maximum size a judge should allow? Limited only by the
ability of the police to work through the data?

It's not a problem for anyone else as if they are innocent, they have >>>nothing to hide from police, right?

That's the same argument I see being made for all of the Flock
cameras. A year ago there was only one across the street from my place
that had been there for years. Now I was looking around and there are
at least five of them watching the streets within a half mile of me.
That doesn't count the ones at the Home Depot or other businesses.

Well, that's actually the point, isn't it? Every time you step out of your >house, you're on so many cameras-- from people's doorbells to every single >business on every street-- that complaining that any one of them violates your >privacy is close to nonsensical.

I have no Fourth Amendment privacy protection from cameras, but I have a
First Amendment right to complain, even if my complaint falls upon deaf
ears.

What are your thoughts on geofence warrants and the burden upon the conglomerates that aggregate so much data to comply with the warrant?

We've become China, haven't we.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)