Julie Jonas, professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, spoke with MPR News about a U.S. Supreme Court case examining law enforcement’s use of geofencing warrants. Jonas discussed the privacy implications of location tracking technology, the constitutional questions surrounding digital data collection, and how the court’s decision could shape the balance between criminal investigations and individual privacy rights.
From the conversation:
Nina Moini: ... I think it’s this question now before the U.S. Supreme Court of balancing and helping, I guess, law enforcement. A lot of people hear it and they think, well, why not? If it helps people solve a crime, let’s give them all this information. But there are constitutional rights. There are laws. What are the questions that are before the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to people’s privacy and just rights?
Julie Jonas: Well, the big issue comes down to do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in where we go, in our locations throughout our day? I think most people would say, yes, we do – that law enforcement can’t use our cell phone data, and we all use our cell phones so regularly that they can’t use that information to track us. Now, of course, it’s wonderful as a crime-solving tool, but you can think about other ways where it could be misused to track people, to political meetings, or to abortion clinics or other health care providers.
There have been instances of companies who are not perhaps as reliable as Google is, where they sell this data to law enforcement. In one case, they used it to out a Catholic priest who was visiting gay bars. In another case, they were selling this data to the federal government using a popular Muslim dating website, as well as an app that allowed them to know the direction of Mecca when they said their daily prayers. So you can see where this is a very slippery slope. And I think Google was trying to be careful, but maybe it wasn’t quite enough.
Moini: I wonder if you know about alternatives for law enforcement to get location data regardless of this ruling. Are there other ways that could preserve more privacy for people?
Jonas: No the other ways are actually worse for people because law enforcement can buy this data. There are companies out there like X-mode, and SafeGraph, Fog Data Science who are selling it to law enforcement. And because law enforcement isn’t compelling them to sell it, there’s no warrant requirement at all. So oftentimes, defendants and other people don’t even know it’s happening.
