Tag: geofencing

Pakistan Uses Geofencing to Track, Disable Digital IDs of Protesters

Pakistani authorities have moved to disable the national ID and passports of individuals linked to the unrest that unfolded on May 9, 2023, turning to geo-fencing technology to track the presence of mobile devices near demonstration sites.

The protesters were protesting the arrest of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan.

The tactic draws on the country’s highly centralized digital identity infrastructure, which is managed by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA).

Following a wave of civil disorder earlier in the year, the state has turned its attention to restricting those it believes were involved, though officials have not released exact figures.

The action adds a new layer to NADRA’s already significant role in overseeing identification and mobility in Pakistan. The agency had previously played a key part in enforcing nationwide SIM registration by linking phone access to verified ID credentials.

The main aspect of the current operation is the use of geofencing, a surveillance method that defines virtual boundaries around locations and tracks which mobile devices enter those areas.

By analyzing mobile network signals, authorities are able to determine who was present near protest hotspots during specific periods and take action accordingly. The approach allows for highly targeted enforcement, based on digital footprints rather than conventional investigative methods.

This use of data to restrict identity documents marks a profound escalation in how digital ID systems are being weaponized.

In Pakistan, ID cards and passports are essential for almost every aspect of life; banking, public services, travel, and even mobile phone use. Withholding these documents amounts to cutting individuals off from full participation in society.

Keep reading

“Geofenced Every Event”: Democrats Caught Staging Another ‘Inorganic’ Color Revolution Operation Against Trump

Far-left, billionaire-funded NGOs—closely aligned with the rudderless and imploding Democratic Party—have been waging a psychological warfare operation against the American people. Framed as “grassroots,” the party of hate and violence—evident in their “Tesla Takedown” color revolution aimed at killing Tesla to pressure Elon Musk on DOGE—has been building momentum in recent weeks to segue into anti-Trump protests this weekend. The goal is to manufacture the illusion that Trump is wildly unpopular, leveraging a vast network of dark money-funded NGOs that supply rent-a-protesters to rallies nationwide. 

Ahead of anti-Trump protests, we uncovered the Democratic Party’s NGO war machine, totaling 186 NGOs, unions, and other radical leftist groups that supported Saturday’s mass mobilization efforts of rent-a-protesters and, of course, a grassroots component of the protests (mainly old white angry liberals). 

Late Friday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow openly boasted about the Democratic Party’s color revolution operation, even giving airtime to Ezra Levin of the NGO Indivisible Project, who attempted to convince the audience that the anti-Musk and anti-Trump protests are organic…

Keep reading

Judge Ho rules that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment” – “general, exploratory rummaging” by law enforcement is ILLEGAL

The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is maintaining its position that so-called geofence warrants, which were used to track Jan. 6, 2021, “insurrection” participants, are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment,” which protects We the People from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement and other arms of the government.

Judge James C. Ho issued an opinion that while geofence warrants “are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime,” they overtly violate the U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords to people living in this country.

“The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery – and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology,” Judge Ho wrote. “So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests.”

“But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers – and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests.”

Justice Ho also quoted The Federalist No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) which reads in support of his ruling:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” but “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions” because of “human nature,” which makes it “necessary to control the abuses of government.”

Keep reading

Just The Facts On ‘Geofencing’: The Intrusive, App-Based ‘Dragnet’ That Sgt. Joe Friday Never Dreamed Of

As worshippers gathered at the Calvary Chapel in 2020, they were being watched from above.  

“We are in the space between the emergence of this technological practice and courts having ruled on its constitutionality,” said Alex Marthews, national chair for Restore the 4th, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans’ rights against “unreasonable search and seizure.” 

“Geofencing” often begins with an innocent click. Smartphone apps ask if they can access location to improve service. When users say they yes, they often don’t realize that the apps that help them drive, cook, or pray are likely reselling their information to far-flung for-profit entities. This and other information detailing people’s behaviors and preferences is valuable for businesses trying to target customers. The global location intelligence market was estimated at $16 billion last year, according to Grand View Research, which predicts that figure will grow to $51 billion by 2030.

While it is legal for private companies to broker this information, constitutional questions arise when government accesses data from a third party that it would be prohibited from collecting on its own. The lawsuit filed by Calvary Chapel in August argues that Santa Clara County carried out a warrantless surveillance of the church when it acquired information in 2020 on the church’s foot traffic patterns collected by a research team from Stanford University. Court documents show the researchers acquired the information, which originated with Google Maps, from the location data company SafeGraph, which is also being sued by Calvary. 

Nicole Berger, SafeGraph’s senior vice president of operations, has said the Stanford team violated the company’s terms of service and non-commercial research agreement. For its part, Google has since cracked down on third-party vendors, though it still uses location and other data for its own operations.

Google was recently ordered to pay $93 million in a settlement over its collection of location data even after users turned off their location history. The company is also involved in an ongoing dispute in an Oakland, Calif., U.S. District Court over the company’s “Real Time Bidding” process, whereby customers’ personal information is auctioned off to advertisers, so that they can place targeted ads. According to the Calvary Chapel lawsuit, it was this process, among others, which enabled SafeGraph to collect users’ location data. 

Geofencing allows users to build a fence around certain areas or points-of-interest such as Calvary Chapel or the area near the Capitol on Jan. 6 and see when people entered that space.

Keep reading

GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD WILL USE PHONE LOCATION TRACKING TO RECRUIT HIGH SCHOOL CHILDREN

THE GEORGIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD plans to combine two deeply controversial practices — military recruiting at schools and location-based phone surveillance — to persuade teens to enlist, according to contract documents reviewed by The Intercept.

The federal contract materials outline plans by the Georgia Army National Guard to geofence 67 different public high schools throughout the state, targeting phones found within a one-mile boundary of their campuses with recruiting advertisements “with the intent of generating qualified leads of potential applicants for enlistment while also raising awareness of the Georgia Army National Guard.” Geofencing refers generally to the practice of drawing a virtual border around a real-world area and is often used in the context of surveillance-based advertising as well as more traditional law enforcement and intelligence surveillance. The Department of Defense expects interested vendors to deliver a minimum of 3.5 million ad views and 250,000 clicks, according to the contract paperwork.

While the deadline for vendors attempting to win the contract was the end of this past February, no public winner has been announced.

Keep reading

‘Geofence’ Warrants Threaten Every Phone User’s Privacy

The last time your phone asked you to allow this or that app access to your location data, you may have had some trepidation about how much Apple or Google know about you. You may have worried about what might come of that, or read about China’s use of the data to track anti-lockdown protesters. What you probably didn’t realize is Google has already searched your data on behalf of the federal government to see if you were involved with January 6th.

But last month, the federal district court in DC issued an opinion in the case of  one of the many defendants who stands accused of sacking the Capitol in the wake of the 2020 election.

And with it, Judge Rudolph Contreras became the first federal district judge to approve a “Geofence” warrant, endorsing a recent police innovation: searching the cell phone history of every American to check who happened to be in the area of some potential crime.

The “Geofence” in this context refers to cell phone location data collected by Google from users of its Android operating system, as well as iPhone users who use apps such as Google Maps. Location tracking can be turned off, but most users allow it for the convenience of getting directions, tracking their daily jog, or finding the nearest Chipotle. The Government’s warrant demanded location history for every Google account holder within a range of longitude and latitude roughly corresponding to the Capitol building on the afternoon of January 6, 2021, along with similar data from that morning and evening (to filter out Hill staff and security guards).

It’s not clear this information was even needed: This defendant was apprehended within the building that day, carrying knives and pepper spray, and features on various security cameras — his whereabouts are not in question. Many of his coreligionists were considerate enough to live stream their antics themselves. While tracking down every participant in what was dubbed the Beer Belly Putsch is impractical, prosecutors have not lacked for defendants, or for evidence against them. But the government nonetheless decided to resort to a level of mass surveillance without precedent in history or criminal law. This is only the second federal district judge to rule on such a warrant, and the first, in the Eastern District of Virginia, found it “invalid for lack of particularized probable cause” (though that judge declined to suppress the evidence on the basis of other Fourth Amendment loopholes created by the Supreme Court).

That particular requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment itself, which calls for every warrant to “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This means that, for instance, the warrant issued last year for former President Trump’s Florida residence did not simply say “search the house,” but detailed specific rooms to be searched for specific things (boxes of documents). The cops can’t — or at least are not supposed to — dump out your underwear drawer based on a tip that you’re hiding cocaine in your basement.

Keep reading