Google, that time the company gave the FBI a lot of data

In early May 2021, the FBI received the identification data of 1535 users, as well as detailed maps showing how their phones had moved around the Capitol and associated areas. Evidence relating to geofencing has so far been cited in more than one hundred indictment documents as of January 6, 2021. In nearly fifty cases, this data appears to have led to the identification of the alleged rioters.

Fears and possible consequences

Rhine was reported to the FBI for the first time by some informants who had heard that he had been inside the Capitol. However, investigators only identified him in the surveillance footage after comparing it to the geofencing coordinates on his phone. Now his lawyer is trying to get the geofencing tests canceled for a variety of reasons, including the privacy of Google data by Rhine.

“The government recruited Google to search millions of accounts – wrote Rhine’s lawyers -. Even a small amount of location history data can identify individuals […] engaged in personal and protected activities (such as exercising their rights under the First Amendment). As a result, a geofencing mandate almost always involves aintrusion into constitutionally protected areas“.

If the judge dismisses the geofencing-related evidence in Rhine’s case, there is a possibility that the man and other suspects identified with the technique are not convicted.

University of Utah law professor Matthew Tokson points out theuncertainty around the concept of geofencing mandates: “Some courts have declared them valid. Others have said they are excessive and involve too many innocent people. We are still early days“.

Despite the unprecedented number of people involved in the mandate for the events of January 6, 2021 and the solid arguments of Rhine’s attorney, Tokson believes the chances of success of the lawyer’s motion are very low. “Unlike a search warrant for a bank robbery, it is likely that the people who were in the area were all involved in at least one low-level criminal break-in and in some cases worse crimes”, explains Tokson.

Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at American University, agrees: “And that worries me because the January 6 lawsuits will be used to build a doctrine that will essentially allow police to find virtually anyone with a cell phone or smart device in ways that we, as a society, haven’t quite figured out yet. – argues the teacher -. This will harm the work of journalists, political dissidents and women seeking abortion-related coverage“.

The judge is likely to rule on Rhine’s motion in December, with the trial slated for late January 2023. While the decision will be decisive for Rhine’s fate, it is unlikely to resolve the issue of geofencing mandates any longer. general. “There is very likely to be an appeal one way or another Tokson says. It will be a high profile lawsuit that will likely represent a important precedent to the appellate court, if not even the Supreme Court“.

This article originally appeared on Wired UK.