Keyword Warrants

[BugI02]

At least there's one person left that still has faith in the justice system. We never thought phony FISA warrants could be issued to spy on a presidential candidate but here we are, imagine what they would do to some peon. If things are still okay at the local level at least that's something.

It just seems like you could not legally stop everybody entering a particular area and pull identifying data off their phone, so why is it legal to do a blanket search of an area with a cell provider to get the identifiers of all those who entered that same area

At a guess, I would suspect it is easier to get the provider to roll over on their customers (provided the warrant is sealed) whereas pushback from among the many individuals is almost guaranteed. The solution would seem to be to limit the sealing of such a warrant. That it was made public before the investigation was completed could be answered with admonition to LE that this type of warrant should be limited to a mature investigation and those caught up in the warrant should be able to find out about it and sue the provider

 

[BugI02]

I reread it, and I stand by the previous post. Is or isn't this blindly trolling through all of Google's data without an identifiable suspect? Show your work. If it is and you don't have a problem with it, no, you should never be allowed near a badge.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I read this as LE applies for warrant to ask Google to provide information on ANY keyword search, not keyword searches tied to a specific ip address or other identifying electronic signature tying said search to a particular party subject to the warrant. If the warrant is more narrowly defined (e.g. to a specific ip address), I stand corrected, but that's not what I got from the article. If it's narrowly defined, it's still an process ripe for abuse, and there needs to be a legitimate process for filing criminal charges against those who abuse the system with stiff penalties for those convicted.

LE doesn't "troll through the data". Google does. Google then sends what data they believe matches the parameters of the warrant to LE.

So when I sent warrants to Sony asking for every IP address a given device hooked to since XXX, Sony crawled through everyone's data because Sony owns that data. Sony then sent me the relevant IP address/es. I don't get to see the data they crawled through nor any information that isn't what's on the warrant. I've already covered the need for a criminal predicate, etc. and won't rehash that. Lying on a warrant application would be Perjury at minimum, then companion charges depending. The simple truth is that data is much more at risk from Sony or Verizon then from rogue cops swearing out bogus warrants.

Not sure how this lives up to 4th amendment in any way. To review:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No such fishing expedition should ever be considered constitutionally sound or legal. The proper order is suspect first, search warrant second; not broad search warrant first to discover suspects

Holy KGB, Batman

Why would I have to have a suspect first? Read my post on search warrants for items stolen in a robbery to determine the location. So you think I need to know who my robber is first? No, that's a step toward learning who it is.

Let's say Jane Doe runs a local jewelry store. There is a home invasion at her house and she is murdered. A neighbor reports hearing someone yell "where's the jewels?"

4th amendment:
Probable cause: There is probable cause a crime occurred. Murder. It's irrelevant you don't know who did it. You would still need PC that evidence probably exists and that it's probably where you want to search. The second sentence is the only part of this that would be controversial legally, and I'll get back to that.

Particular place: Google servers.

Particular thing to be seized: Records of historical data related so search of "Jane Doe's Address".



Now, back to that second sentence. Where you could convince me a given warrant could be problematic is that element of the required PC. Is it probable that a suspect searched for her address? That's going to be context dependent. I'm basing my hypothetical on a real case I worked. From other information, I knew the person was targeted by strangers and because of ownership of a jewelry store. *I* found his home address by searching his name to see how easy it was, because I thought perhaps a known associate had set it up (I later cleared that person, btw). I never thought to try and get a warrant for Google, but in hindsight that may have been pretty helpful. Google is the biggest player, so anyone who searches is probably using Google. I think I could make a compelling case that X was targeted due to being a jeweler, X's name is on the sign, I found X's address in less than a minute via Google, and given that strangers were the suspects they had to find X's home address somehow.

Note that if PC doesn't exist for that particular element, a grand jury subpoena can get you in the door to discover if the records exist and then use the subpoena results to get a warrant. Subpoenas have a lower burden of proof but also can't return the same level of detail due to that. You can't get location data, for example.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It just seems like you could not legally stop everybody entering a particular area and pull identifying data off their phone, so why is it legal to do a blanket search of an area with a cell provider to get the identifiers of all those who entered that same area

Level of intrusion is a factor in reasonableness under the 4th, as is ownership of the "place" to be searched and "thing" to be siezed. Pulling a physical item out of a car is more intrusive. Your phone is an item you own. Your car has a level of protection that's lower than your house but still quite high. (Is a car a person, house, paper, or effect? Is a cell phone company server? The courts have had to try and integrate the 4th with technology that was unfathomable at the time of our founding, as well as questions of ownership that would have been meaningless at the time which leads us to...). Finally, because the data is Verizon's data (or whoever). It's about you, but you don't own it.

Trying to equate the two is as meaningless as saying why can radio waves trespass in your living room but radio DJs can't.

 

[Brad69]

I need no freaking warrants!

Stated by a Bounty Hunter!

 

[BugI02]

It still makes me very uneasy

Could not government note that a person was murdered with a 9mm, cite a study that criminals seldom stockpile ammunition and one indicating how close to a crime scene criminals commonly live, and then seek a warrant for data from Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover for everyone who bought 9mm ammunition in the past X months while living within a radius of Y of the crime scene?

Would you not acknowledge perhaps a search could be over broad, or, like the FISA warrants, be designed to elicit information that could not be gotten in a more straight-forward way such as who likely possesses a 9mm firearm in a broad geographic area

The whole process seems devoid of oversight as well as checks and balances

 

[bwframe]

Should we be running VPN's on our smartphones as a precaution?

 

[ditcherman]

LE doesn't "troll through the data". Google does. Google then sends what data they believe matches the parameters of the warrant to LE.

So when I sent warrants to Sony asking for every IP address a given device hooked to since XXX, Sony crawled through everyone's data because Sony owns that data. Sony then sent me the relevant IP address/es. I don't get to see the data they crawled through nor any information that isn't what's on the warrant. I've already covered the need for a criminal predicate, etc. and won't rehash that. Lying on a warrant application would be Perjury at minimum, then companion charges depending. The simple truth is that data is much more at risk from Sony or Verizon then from rogue cops swearing out bogus warrants.



Why would I have to have a suspect first? Read my post on search warrants for items stolen in a robbery to determine the location. So you think I need to know who my robber is first? No, that's a step toward learning who it is.

Let's say Jane Doe runs a local jewelry store. There is a home invasion at her house and she is murdered. A neighbor reports hearing someone yell "where's the jewels?"

4th amendment:
Probable cause: There is probable cause a crime occurred. Murder. It's irrelevant you don't know who did it. You would still need PC that evidence probably exists and that it's probably where you want to search. The second sentence is the only part of this that would be controversial legally, and I'll get back to that.

Particular place: Google servers.

Particular thing to be seized: Records of historical data related so search of "Jane Doe's Address".



Now, back to that second sentence. Where you could convince me a given warrant could be problematic is that element of the required PC. Is it probable that a suspect searched for her address? That's going to be context dependent. I'm basing my hypothetical on a real case I worked. From other information, I knew the person was targeted by strangers and because of ownership of a jewelry store. *I* found his home address by searching his name to see how easy it was, because I thought perhaps a known associate had set it up (I later cleared that person, btw). I never thought to try and get a warrant for Google, but in hindsight that may have been pretty helpful. Google is the biggest player, so anyone who searches is probably using Google. I think I could make a compelling case that X was targeted due to being a jeweler, X's name is on the sign, I found X's address in less than a minute via Google, and given that strangers were the suspects they had to find X's home address somehow.

Note that if PC doesn't exist for that particular element, a grand jury subpoena can get you in the door to discover if the records exist and then use the subpoena results to get a warrant. Subpoenas have a lower burden of proof but also can't return the same level of detail due to that. You can't get location data, for example.

Thank you for taking the time to explain everything as you have.
It sounds like you’re saying “these things are limited”, and I think many on here are somewhere between “yea right” and “for now”.
I suppose if we don’t do anything wrong we won’t ever have anything to worry about. Trying to decide whether that’s purple or not….

 

[ditcherman]

Should we be running VPN's on our smartphones as a precaution?

My understating is that just protects your provider from identifying you. If a phone uses any cell signal data it ties to you. I’m a tech idiot though so happily waiting correction.

 

[bwframe]

My understating is that just protects your provider from identifying you. If a phone uses any cell signal data it ties to you. I’m a tech idiot though so happily waiting correction.

That was my impression also, but BBI was referencing IP addresses. Just wondering if this would be a valid precautionary step or wasted effort and money for poorer bandwidth?

 

[jwamplerusa]

I swear to God, more and more, every day, I feel that I am not living my own life, but only exist in some poor sap's dystopian nightmare.

You and me both!

After the last 5 years I keep thinking, certainly I'm going to wake up in a cold sweat screaming and realize that it was all just a bad dream. Unfortunately every time I pinch myself it hurts. I don't think that's supposed to happen in the dream.

The old line about 1984 was supposed to be a warning not a how-to manual is starting to look more and more like reality.

 

[ditcherman]

Every tool can be misused.

In what the article is talking about, you don't just type something and cops show up. Not yet at least, otherwise there would be a whole lot of "thought criminals" being locked up just from their posts on this board.

A murder takes place, cops look for information and connections to that victim. If you had any connection to the victim, you're likely going to get looked at, correct? You bought something from the victim in the months leading to their death, how do they know this? Texts, calls, emails to the victim. Which, I'm assuming they can know by looking at the personal effects of the victim. Likely, you'll be questioned (which you should retain a lawyer anytime you are questioned by the police,) and if that's all it is, more often than not, that's as far as it goes.

Granted, sometimes an LEO makes up their mind before there is any evidence, and then massages what they find. Wrongful convictions based on scant evidence, and preconceived assumptions happened before there was an internet, before there was an America, and before there were codes of law.

The following is not directed at any particular individual:

If you think parts of the system aren't running the way the law says, then push back against those parts of the system with lawful means. Vote in better district attorneys, and politicians and get things changed. Do positive things to change the system and the state we're in.

If y'all think the entire system is corrupt and want to tear it all down, go join antifa, that's their gig.

If you think we are past the point of no return, and it's the ammo box over the ballot box, WTF are you doing spouting your views on a public forum and putting a target on your back. You ought to be holed up in a bunker somewhere, because the **** already hit the fan. Or you're a Fed informant and trying to stir the pot...

Well, we don't have to imaging what happens to the plebes. Just look at the treatment of the Jan 6th mostly peaceful insurrectionists...

There's little trust left in some institutions because the accountability has vanished when they make mistakes, or there is genuine malfeasance.

I’m having some trouble reconciling that these two posts are from the same point of view. I think the second one explains my view, which you ‘argued?’ with in the first one.

There’s middle ground in every subject. On the law making, law enforcing side, on the ones that are suspicious of govt, clear down to the ones breaking the law. Not everyone’s a hard liner.
For example, I don’t think we’ll vote ourselves out of this, away from a surveillance state, but joining antifa is a ridiculous thing to say to someone.

I know you said not directed at anyone, but my post spurred it.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

I have been asked on more than one occasion if I was a Fed, and also been accused of being an anarchist. I must be doing something really wrong.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I have been asked on more than one occasion if I was a Fed, and also been accused of being an anarchist. I must be doing something really wrong.

No, you're doing something really right! Keep them guessing!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thank you for taking the time to explain everything as you have.
It sounds like you’re saying “these things are limited”, and I think many on here are somewhere between “yea right” and “for now”.
I suppose if we don’t do anything wrong we won’t ever have anything to worry about. Trying to decide whether that’s purple or not….

I think part of the confusion is based on the difference in how a warrant "normally" works vs how a warrant works in this context. Due to the sheer size and complexity of these databases, a warrant sent to them acts more like a subpoena. Nobody from LE shows up at the door. They get paperwork compelling them to search their own data then give up any results that match.

A simple analogy is:

"Normal" warrant: I have a warrant for a pair of socks that are in your house. I go in your house and I get the socks. I do rummage your stuff until I find the socks.

"Database" warrant: I mail you the warrant. You go through your own house, if you find the socks you mail them to me. If you don't find the socks you send me a letter saying you don't have them. I never rummage anything and the only thing I get is the socks or notification you don't have any socks matching that description.


Most of the companies are very picky about the wording of the warrant and will only respond within the scope. I cannot, for example, just say in plain language "I want the geographic location of this phone at these times", I have to request it in their technical terms describing the type of system they use to track location. If I use AT&T's terms with Verizon, I'll get back "data doesn't exist". Some companies just never respond to warrants. Armslist never did when I tried to get info reference robberies set up on via their website. Others were very quick to respond and used plain language, like OfferUp.

 

[buckwacker]

LE doesn't "troll through the data". Google does. Google then sends what data they believe matches the parameters of the warrant to LE.

So when I sent warrants to Sony asking for every IP address a given device hooked to since XXX, Sony crawled through everyone's data because Sony owns that data. Sony then sent me the relevant IP address/es. I don't get to see the data they crawled through nor any information that isn't what's on the warrant. I've already covered the need for a criminal predicate, etc. and won't rehash that. Lying on a warrant application would be Perjury at minimum, then companion charges depending. The simple truth is that data is much more at risk from Sony or Verizon then from rogue cops swearing out bogus warrants.



Why would I have to have a suspect first? Read my post on search warrants for items stolen in a robbery to determine the location. So you think I need to know who my robber is first? No, that's a step toward learning who it is.

Let's say Jane Doe runs a local jewelry store. There is a home invasion at her house and she is murdered. A neighbor reports hearing someone yell "where's the jewels?"

4th amendment:
Probable cause: There is probable cause a crime occurred. Murder. It's irrelevant you don't know who did it. You would still need PC that evidence probably exists and that it's probably where you want to search. The second sentence is the only part of this that would be controversial legally, and I'll get back to that.

Particular place: Google servers.

Particular thing to be seized: Records of historical data related so search of "Jane Doe's Address".



Now, back to that second sentence. Where you could convince me a given warrant could be problematic is that element of the required PC. Is it probable that a suspect searched for her address? That's going to be context dependent. I'm basing my hypothetical on a real case I worked. From other information, I knew the person was targeted by strangers and because of ownership of a jewelry store. *I* found his home address by searching his name to see how easy it was, because I thought perhaps a known associate had set it up (I later cleared that person, btw). I never thought to try and get a warrant for Google, but in hindsight that may have been pretty helpful. Google is the biggest player, so anyone who searches is probably using Google. I think I could make a compelling case that X was targeted due to being a jeweler, X's name is on the sign, I found X's address in less than a minute via Google, and given that strangers were the suspects they had to find X's home address somehow.

Note that if PC doesn't exist for that particular element, a grand jury subpoena can get you in the door to discover if the records exist and then use the subpoena results to get a warrant. Subpoenas have a lower burden of proof but also can't return the same level of detail due to that. You can't get location data, for example.

LE doesn't troll through data, Google does. Oh what a relief.

Im sorry, but the temptation has been to nibble away at rights and privacy in the name of justice, or safety, or whatever cliche excuse those in authority choose at the present. It needs to stop. So hypothetically, could one use facial recognition software and AI to troll through everyone's security camera video since if it's transmitted electronically in search of someone; video inside and outside everyone's homes? I mean if you have a warrant of course and the compliant third party would do the trolling, you know to protect privacy.

 

[buckwacker]

I think part of the confusion is based on the difference in how a warrant "normally" works vs how a warrant works in this context. Due to the sheer size and complexity of these databases, a warrant sent to them acts more like a subpoena. Nobody from LE shows up at the door. They get paperwork compelling them to search their own data then give up any results that match.

A simple analogy is:

"Normal" warrant: I have a warrant for a pair of socks that are in your house. I go in your house and I get the socks. I do rummage your stuff until I find the socks.

"Database" warrant: I mail you the warrant. You go through your own house, if you find the socks you mail them to me. If you don't find the socks you send me a letter saying you don't have them. I never rummage anything and the only thing I get is the socks or notification you don't have any socks matching that description.


Most of the companies are very picky about the wording of the warrant and will only respond within the scope. I cannot, for example, just say in plain language "I want the geographic location of this phone at these times", I have to request it in their technical terms describing the type of system they use to track location. If I use AT&T's terms with Verizon, I'll get back "data doesn't exist". Some companies just never respond to warrants. Armslist never did when I tried to get info reference robberies set up on via their website. Others were very quick to respond and used plain language, like OfferUp.

That is a false analogy. It would be more like the warrant compells all landlords for all apartments in the country to enter every apartment when the tenants are not there and rummage every place for that pair of socks. Doesn't sound quite so innocuous now does it?

 

[Keith_Indy]

I’m having some trouble reconciling that these two posts are from the same point of view. I think the second one explains my view, which you ‘argued?’ with in the first one.

There’s middle ground in every subject. On the law making, law enforcing side, on the ones that are suspicious of govt, clear down to the ones breaking the law. Not everyone’s a hard liner.
For example, I don’t think we’ll vote ourselves out of this, away from a surveillance state, but joining antifa is a ridiculous thing to say to someone.

I know you said not directed at anyone, but my post spurred it.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

I have been asked on more than one occasion if I was a Fed, and also been accused of being an anarchist. I must be doing something really wrong.

OK, 3 parts -

The tool they are using, as described, seems reasonable to me, ie we are presenting you with a warrant for anyone searching for victim AAAA or their address in the weeks/months leading to their murder.

---

Tools will be misused, always have, and probably always will be. When a new tool is brought to bare, of course we should be skeptical of its use. We (really the judges/lawyers/activists paying attention) should be on the lookout for abuse. Above all we should be distrustful when things are not open and above board.

---

So, if one believes we wont vote ourselves out of this, what are the solutions for such a person?

Tear it all down, or hide in a "bunker" and just hope you don't get caught in a fabricated charge. I suppose flee the country for some other place is another option. ANTIFA, boogaloo bois, some militias, etc. want to tear the whole system down, eliminationism/accelerationism.

They are under the bad assumption that the result would be in their favor, or even better than what we have now.

---

I don't advocate for that. I don't want to see this country slide into open conflict between tribes. So, for me at least, that means we do our best to push for accountability for those misusing the tools and make sure individual rights are upheld.

 

[Keith_Indy]

LE doesn't troll through data, Google does. Oh what a relief.

Im sorry, but the temptation has been to nibble away at rights and privacy in the name of justice, or safety, or whatever cliche excuse those in authority choose at the present. It needs to stop. So hypothetically, could one use facial recognition software and AI to troll through everyone's security camera video since if it's transmitted electronically in search of someone; video inside and outside everyone's homes? I mean if you have a warrant of course and the compliant third party would do the trolling, you know to protect privacy.

 

[buckwacker]

View attachment 161939

The government outsourcing of civil rights violations to private entities doesn't absolve them of culpability. It has to stop.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It still makes me very uneasy

Could not government note that a person was murdered with a 9mm...

No.

Should we be running VPN's on our smartphones as a precaution?

A VPN would help anonymize your web usage, but would be meaningless as far as call history, location data, etc.