Reverse search warrant: Difference between revisions
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, template type. Add: magazine, jstor, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine |
|||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Type of search warrant}} |
{{Short description|Type of search warrant}} |
||
A '''reverse search warrant''' is a type of [[search warrant]] in which [[law enforcement]] obtains a court order for information from technology companies to identify a group of people who may be suspects in a crime. They differ from traditional search warrants, which typically apply to specific individuals.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|date=May 10, 2021|title=Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/05/geofence-warrants-and-the-fourth-amendment/|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=134|issue=7}}</ref><ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian">{{cite news|last1=Bhuiyan|first1=Johana|date=September 16, 2021|title=The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history|language=en|work=the Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/16/geofence-warrants-reverse-search-warrants-police-google|access-date=October 17, 2021}}</ref> [[Geo-fence warrant|Geo-fence warrants]] and keyword warrants are two types of reverse search warrants.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian" /> |
A '''reverse search warrant''' is a type of [[search warrant]] used in the United States, in which [[law enforcement]] obtains a court order for information from technology companies to identify a group of people who may be suspects in a crime. They differ from traditional search warrants, which typically apply to specific individuals.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|date=May 10, 2021|title=Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/05/geofence-warrants-and-the-fourth-amendment/|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=134|issue=7}}</ref><ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian">{{cite news|last1=Bhuiyan|first1=Johana|date=September 16, 2021|title=The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history|language=en|work=the Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/16/geofence-warrants-reverse-search-warrants-police-google|access-date=October 17, 2021}}</ref> [[Geo-fence warrant|Geo-fence warrants]], which seek data on mobile phone users who were in a specific location at a given time, and keyword warrants, which request information on users who searched specific phrases, are two types of reverse search warrants.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian" /> |
||
== History == |
== History == |
||
Reverse location warrants were first used in 2016.<ref name=":0" /> [[Google]] reported that it had received 982 reverse location warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian" /> A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were [[geo-fence]] data requests.<ref name=":1">{{Cite |
Reverse location warrants were first used in 2016, and have become increasingly widely used by United States law enforcement.<ref name=":0" /> [[Google]] reported that it had received 982 reverse location warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian" /> A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were [[geo-fence]] data requests.<ref name=":1">{{Cite magazine|last=Fussell|first=Sidney|date=August 27, 2021|title=An Explosion in Geofence Warrants Threatens Privacy Across the US|language=en-US|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=https://www.wired.com/story/geofence-warrants-google/|access-date=October 17, 2021|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> Google is the most common recipient of reverse location warrants and the main provider of such data,<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|date=May 10, 2021|title=Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/05/geofence-warrants-and-the-fourth-amendment/|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=134|issue=7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rathi|first=Mohit|date=2021|title=Rethinking Reverse Location Search Warrants|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48617799|journal=[[The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology]]|volume=111|issue=3|pages=805–837|jstor=48617799 |issn=0091-4169|via=JSTOR}}</ref> although companies including [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Snapchat]], [[Lyft]], and [[Uber]] have also received such warrants.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> |
||
== |
== Types == |
||
=== |
=== Geo-fence warrant === |
||
{{Main|Geo-fence warrant}} |
{{Main|Geo-fence warrant}} |
||
Geo-fence warrants, also called reverse location warrants, seek to compel data from [[search engine]] companies and other technology companies that collect [[Mobile phone tracking|mobile location data]], to determine which users may have been in a specific location at a given time.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian"/> |
|||
=== Keyword warrant === |
=== Keyword warrant === |
||
Keyword search warrants seek to compel search engine companies to release data on users who have searched specific phrases—for example, an address that was later the location of a crime.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian"/> |
Keyword search warrants seek to compel search engine companies to release data on users who have searched specific phrases—for example, an address that was later the location of a crime.<ref name="Bhuiyan-Guardian"/> Keyword warrants are comparatively rare but have been used to request data from companies including Google, [[Microsoft]], and [[Yahoo!|Yahoo]] since at least 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|last=O'Sullivan|first=Andrea|date=October 12, 2021|title=The Government's Secret 'Google Search' Warrant Trap|url=https://reason.com/2021/10/12/the-governments-secret-google-search-warrant-trap/|access-date=October 17, 2021|website=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]|language=en-US}}</ref> |
||
=== Genealogy database warrants === |
|||
{{Main|Investigative genetic genealogy}} |
|||
Companies that collect [[DNA database|DNA data]] have received warrants from law enforcement seeking to access their databases. [[GEDmatch|GEDMatch]] and [[Family Tree DNA]] have cooperated with such requests, while larger companies like Ancestry.com and [[23andMe]] have stated they would fight such attempts by law enforcement.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Aldhous|first=Peter|date=February 3, 2020|title=A Court Tried To Force Ancestry.com To Open Up Its DNA Database To Police. The Company Said No.|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/ancestry-dna-database-search-warrant|access-date=October 17, 2021|website=[[BuzzFeed News]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cahn|first1=Albert Fox|last2=Humell|first2=Amanda|date=October 15, 2020|title='Keyword Warrants' Make Every Search A Risk|url=https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/receive/mir_mods_00009435|journal=[[Verfassungsblog]]|language=en|doi=10.17176/20201015-233342-0|issn=2366-7044}}</ref> These warrants attempt to connect DNA samples from crime scenes with data belonging to commercial DNA testing companies. Even if a perpetrator of a crime has not submitted their data to such companies, DNA samples belonging to relatives, even quite distant ones, have been used to identify suspects and criminals.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
== Legality == |
== Legality == |
||
| ⚫ | Some lawyers and privacy experts have argued reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] or unauthorized by the [[Stored Communications Act]], notwithstanding the [[third-party doctrine]]. The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."<ref name=":0" /> Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to [[General warrant|general warrants]], which are not permitted by the Fourth Amendment.<ref name=":0" /> Although most judges have authorized geofence warrants, at least two federal judges have ruled that such warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's requirements of probable cause and particularity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last1=Lynch|first1=Jennifer|last2=Sobel|first2=Nathaniel|date=August 31, 2021|title=New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/new-federal-court-rulings-find-geofence-warrants-unconstitutional-0|access-date=October 18, 2021|website=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|language=en}}</ref> |
||
=== United States === |
|||
| ⚫ | Some lawyers and privacy experts |
||
| ⚫ | Groups including the [[New York Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[Surveillance Technology Oversight Project]] joined state senator [[Zellnor Myrie]] and assembly member [[Dan Quart]] in 2020 to begin work on legislation in [[New York (state)|New York]] that would prohibit both geo-fence and keyword warrants.<ref name=":1" /> Groups including the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] have opposed geofence warrants in [[Amicus curiae|amicus briefs]] filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geofence data.<ref name=":2" /> |
||
== See also == |
|||
| ⚫ | Groups including the [[New York Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[Surveillance Technology Oversight Project]] joined state senator [[Zellnor Myrie]] and |
||
* [[Dragnet (policing)]] |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Latest revision as of 11:55, 27 September 2023
A reverse search warrant is a type of search warrant used in the United States, in which law enforcement obtains a court order for information from technology companies to identify a group of people who may be suspects in a crime. They differ from traditional search warrants, which typically apply to specific individuals.[1][2] Geo-fence warrants, which seek data on mobile phone users who were in a specific location at a given time, and keyword warrants, which request information on users who searched specific phrases, are two types of reverse search warrants.[2]
History[edit]
Reverse location warrants were first used in 2016, and have become increasingly widely used by United States law enforcement.[1] Google reported that it had received 982 reverse location warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020.[2] A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests.[3] Google is the most common recipient of reverse location warrants and the main provider of such data,[4][5] although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants.[1][3]
Types[edit]
Geo-fence warrant[edit]
Geo-fence warrants, also called reverse location warrants, seek to compel data from search engine companies and other technology companies that collect mobile location data, to determine which users may have been in a specific location at a given time.[2]
Keyword warrant[edit]
Keyword search warrants seek to compel search engine companies to release data on users who have searched specific phrases—for example, an address that was later the location of a crime.[2] Keyword warrants are comparatively rare but have been used to request data from companies including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo since at least 2017.[6]
Genealogy database warrants[edit]
Companies that collect DNA data have received warrants from law enforcement seeking to access their databases. GEDMatch and Family Tree DNA have cooperated with such requests, while larger companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe have stated they would fight such attempts by law enforcement.[7][8] These warrants attempt to connect DNA samples from crime scenes with data belonging to commercial DNA testing companies. Even if a perpetrator of a crime has not submitted their data to such companies, DNA samples belonging to relatives, even quite distant ones, have been used to identify suspects and criminals.[7]
Legality[edit]
Some lawyers and privacy experts have argued reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or unauthorized by the Stored Communications Act, notwithstanding the third-party doctrine. The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[1] Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to general warrants, which are not permitted by the Fourth Amendment.[1] Although most judges have authorized geofence warrants, at least two federal judges have ruled that such warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's requirements of probable cause and particularity.[9]
Groups including the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project joined state senator Zellnor Myrie and assembly member Dan Quart in 2020 to begin work on legislation in New York that would prohibit both geo-fence and keyword warrants.[3] Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have opposed geofence warrants in amicus briefs filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geofence data.[9]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ a b c d e "Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment". Harvard Law Review. 134 (7). May 10, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e Bhuiyan, Johana (September 16, 2021). "The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history". the Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- ^ a b c Fussell, Sidney (August 27, 2021). "An Explosion in Geofence Warrants Threatens Privacy Across the US". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- ^ "Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment". Harvard Law Review. 134 (7). May 10, 2021.
- ^ Rathi, Mohit (2021). "Rethinking Reverse Location Search Warrants". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 111 (3): 805–837. ISSN 0091-4169. JSTOR 48617799 – via JSTOR.
- ^ O'Sullivan, Andrea (October 12, 2021). "The Government's Secret 'Google Search' Warrant Trap". Reason. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- ^ a b Aldhous, Peter (February 3, 2020). "A Court Tried To Force Ancestry.com To Open Up Its DNA Database To Police. The Company Said No". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- ^ Cahn, Albert Fox; Humell, Amanda (October 15, 2020). "'Keyword Warrants' Make Every Search A Risk". Verfassungsblog. doi:10.17176/20201015-233342-0. ISSN 2366-7044.
- ^ a b Lynch, Jennifer; Sobel, Nathaniel (August 31, 2021). "New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved October 18, 2021.