For a number of skeptics, the FBI eventually collected Google information, including return numbers and emails, and the dates on which the accounts were created and last found. Other court records also claim that FBI agents can see a section called “User Removal Area,” although its meaning has not been clarified. It is not clear whether this was based on the original geofence permit, compliance, or search warrants after the suspects were identified.
If, as it turns out, the DOJ used geofence information to create archives to search for suspects, it would be the first to be identified, say legal experts.
“Sounds strange, but I have to know that this is not strange,” said Tim O’Brien, chief technology officer working on Microsoft’s AI principles. studied geofence licenses at the University of Washington School of Law. “If I were a guard, I would say that these three methods are not necessary in this case, because once you walk inside the Capitol, you become a skeptic or a witness.”
Some see it as a slippery slope. “When the judiciary and attorneys see what they can do in foreign cases, it just happens and then it becomes a common crime,” said an unnamed digital lawyer. “I think you will not only see this in murder, you will probably start seeing it in car theft. There is no bribe in this regard. ”
Google states: “We have a comprehensive legal framework designed to protect user privacy while performing important legal functions. As we provide information in accordance with the geofence license, we always disclose anonymous information as a first step in this process. it is something like a court order. ”
Google also said that court rules are often combined with gag rules that prevent the recipient from negotiating.
The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.
Geofence offices are usually provided prior to receiving security advice, are usually printed and reviewed by the public for many years, and there have been no major cases of compliance or use. The law governing them, the Stored Communications Act, was enacted in 1986, already mobile, Wi-Fi, or GPS-enabled, and has not changed much since then.
Instead, DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) and Google have quietly developed their own methods of establishing geofence licenses, which many courts have so far approved.
The fact that Google allows DOJ to meet search requirements is a first step, says Tokson. “But if we are relying on the big tech companies to protect people’s privacy in the state, it is a misconception,” he said. “These companies rely heavily on the government to do business, and not to control them until they die.”
More than 600 people have now been arrested, and at least 185 case, in connection with the Capitol breach, is the most recent complaint using Google’s geofence information submitted last week.
So far, Capitol’s franchise has not been established. In April, New York Times thought it followed one and he complained to be released. The license was found to be a criminal offense against a drug dealer. In the case of geofence data, it seems that information flows independently.
Many Great Stories