Read on Twitter
Remember how I said that as technology advances there are certain cases that you NEED to pay attention to?
For Example
USA
v.
Chatrie
Case No 3:19-cr-00130, EDVA
“the geofence warrant in this case presents an issue of first impression in this district, and in the country”
For Example
USA
v.
Chatrie
Case No 3:19-cr-00130, EDVA
“the geofence warrant in this case presents an issue of first impression in this district, and in the country”
Have you figured out WHY I’m saying this is a really important case?
Here’s your hint - on first glance Chatrie’s Sept 2019 indictment looks pretty normal. Right?
Like an armed robbery...stay with me...
Here’s your hint - on first glance Chatrie’s Sept 2019 indictment looks pretty normal. Right?
Like an armed robbery...stay with me...
Sorry here’s Chatrie’s September 2019 Indictment
ECF Paywall
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/18919946274
Public Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YVEbrvjAiWlHrjDI9RExhywbxUcxD7aW/view?usp=drivesdk
ECF Paywall
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/18919946274
Public Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YVEbrvjAiWlHrjDI9RExhywbxUcxD7aW/view?usp=drivesdk
December 2019 Order - page 1 green box.
This is WHY I am saying you need to pay attention, “geofencing” required Google to turn over data for anyone who was in that area. Sans actual judicial warrant
Get it?
This bring us SERIOUS constitutional rights.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Y5dztJaixCFgE1iMqCTyJd6u81HgKlJ/view?usp=drivesdk
This is WHY I am saying you need to pay attention, “geofencing” required Google to turn over data for anyone who was in that area. Sans actual judicial warrant
Get it?
This bring us SERIOUS constitutional rights.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Y5dztJaixCFgE1iMqCTyJd6u81HgKlJ/view?usp=drivesdk
The Defendant Oct 2019 Motion to Suppress:
“state police to obtain the cell phone location information of 19 Google users “geofence warrant “is an unlawful and unconstitutional general warrant that is both overbroad and lacks the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment,”
“state police to obtain the cell phone location information of 19 Google users “geofence warrant “is an unlawful and unconstitutional general warrant that is both overbroad and lacks the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment,”
This is the October 2019 Motion to Suppress
Think about it, what VSP did is they used a massive “data-geolocation” drag net. Identified 19 Google users who happened to “be near” the bank that was robbed. That should be alarming to all of us. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14C8jsJcyjYriZr-Rz5TmoYJWS0yK9jnK/view?usp=drivesdk
Think about it, what VSP did is they used a massive “data-geolocation” drag net. Identified 19 Google users who happened to “be near” the bank that was robbed. That should be alarming to all of us. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14C8jsJcyjYriZr-Rz5TmoYJWS0yK9jnK/view?usp=drivesdk
Thereafter the Court ordered the Government and Google to file the affidavit, probable cause warrant and other documents related to the VSP “geofence” warrant
The Court Ordered the Govt & Google to file the supporting documents of the “geofence” warrant.
I do NOT condone doxing, I trust you’ll use the appropriate desecration.
This is the supporting Doc (# 54)
Google gave VSP geo-location data of 19 Google Users https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2hm6rJ-l1M3Cm742k5uK28QH5t-HUTR/view?usp=drivesdk
I do NOT condone doxing, I trust you’ll use the appropriate desecration.
This is the supporting Doc (# 54)
Google gave VSP geo-location data of 19 Google Users https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2hm6rJ-l1M3Cm742k5uK28QH5t-HUTR/view?usp=drivesdk
Which now brings us FULL circle.
The reason I think you should pay attention here is if you have a smart phone depending on how the Court rules your data could be swept up without your consent or knowledge. Each phone has an IMEI # so “anonymized information,” is utter bullshit.
The reason I think you should pay attention here is if you have a smart phone depending on how the Court rules your data could be swept up without your consent or knowledge. Each phone has an IMEI # so “anonymized information,” is utter bullshit.
Court held oral arguments on Jan 21st & Feb 20 2020 hearing ordered on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Govt’s data from geofencing
Do NOT conflate that as me supporting the Defendant, this is a civil rights & constitutional issue and PRIVACY
/fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/14jLAsNXhrgG9fILNmfnmzGtAVzCIrR-F/view?usp=drivesdk
Do NOT conflate that as me supporting the Defendant, this is a civil rights & constitutional issue and PRIVACY
/fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/14jLAsNXhrgG9fILNmfnmzGtAVzCIrR-F/view?usp=drivesdk
This case is a case of “first impression” not only in the EDVA BUT nationwide
Given the DJT Admin & Coronavirus & Google you really need to think twice about willingly giving Google you PII, especially medical
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110327695
Public Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dOckk5lcW-7j6kWUXBaR7WghjNlZbuOT/view?usp=drivesdk
Given the DJT Admin & Coronavirus & Google you really need to think twice about willingly giving Google you PII, especially medical
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110327695
Public Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dOckk5lcW-7j6kWUXBaR7WghjNlZbuOT/view?usp=drivesdk
DJT Admin, Google & CV-19
THIS CASE MATTERS
Google Location History (LH) & GeoFencing declaration;
“data through the “Timeline” feature of Google Maps, which operates as a journal...user’s LH data to infer semantic location information such as place visit”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010337018?caseid=453993
THIS CASE MATTERS
Google Location History (LH) & GeoFencing declaration;
“data through the “Timeline” feature of Google Maps, which operates as a journal...user’s LH data to infer semantic location information such as place visit”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010337018?caseid=453993
Those that have followed me for any period of time, know that if I say “PAY attention” = IMPORTANT
GEOFENCING
“..users may also opt into a separate service called Web & App Activity... generate a location radius that accurately captures ..roughly 68% of users“
See purple boxes
GEOFENCING
“..users may also opt into a separate service called Web & App Activity... generate a location radius that accurately captures ..roughly 68% of users“
See purple boxes
Google’s LH product mgr’s declaration.
The defendant argued the Govt GeoFence warrant served on Google was likely unlawful & overly broad. To wit Google admits their 68% accuracy rate means they’ve turned over LH of people in the vicinity of a “crime”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yV-T2iLuM5K6GSoS5tRoLnt_W4W-wrGM/view?usp=drivesdk
The defendant argued the Govt GeoFence warrant served on Google was likely unlawful & overly broad. To wit Google admits their 68% accuracy rate means they’ve turned over LH of people in the vicinity of a “crime”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yV-T2iLuM5K6GSoS5tRoLnt_W4W-wrGM/view?usp=drivesdk
So let me get this straight, here Google admits that the geofencing warrant(s) can sweep up individuals who are NOT suspects but happened to be in the vicinity of the crime. Page 4 paragraph 13 - exactly what civil liberty groups warned & feared.
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110337019
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110337019
Again not to belabor the point, it’s there in black and white in Google’s declaration:
“requested information about Google accounts associated with devices that reported a location located within a 150-meter radius around a specified latitude and longitude coordination...”
“requested information about Google accounts associated with devices that reported a location located within a 150-meter radius around a specified latitude and longitude coordination...”
Notice how Google pushed back?
“Google received an email from Detective Hylton
requesting additional location data and subscriber information for all 19 device numbers produced in step1...9 devices step 2... requesting subscriber information (i.e., step 3) on 3 device numbers”
“Google received an email from Detective Hylton
requesting additional location data and subscriber information for all 19 device numbers produced in step1...9 devices step 2... requesting subscriber information (i.e., step 3) on 3 device numbers”
WHY this is important?
If you were 1 of 19 people who happened to be within a 150 meter radius bank, located in Richmond, VA between 4:20 PM and 5:20PM on March 20, 2019 some of your data Google sent to law enforcement
That’s a civil liberties issue /fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlrxbTmbEQQTTNtXDxTM_WYJOXVxvs6S/view?usp=drivesdk
If you were 1 of 19 people who happened to be within a 150 meter radius bank, located in Richmond, VA between 4:20 PM and 5:20PM on March 20, 2019 some of your data Google sent to law enforcement
That’s a civil liberties issue /fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlrxbTmbEQQTTNtXDxTM_WYJOXVxvs6S/view?usp=drivesdk
We FINALLY have an update
I need to be really clear here, in no way am I defending Defendant CHATRIE.
I know this is nuanced and a lot of you might not fully understand why I’m unusually obsessed about this case.
It is likely one of the MOST important cases involving data privacy
I need to be really clear here, in no way am I defending Defendant CHATRIE.
I know this is nuanced and a lot of you might not fully understand why I’m unusually obsessed about this case.
It is likely one of the MOST important cases involving data privacy
This case is in FACT a
case of first impression
in the legal community that actually means something. And it’s undeniably important because until USA v CHATRIE no other Fed District Court has address the complicated “geofencing” & it’s incredibly complex
I’ve done my best to KISS
case of first impression
in the legal community that actually means something. And it’s undeniably important because until USA v CHATRIE no other Fed District Court has address the complicated “geofencing” & it’s incredibly complex
I’ve done my best to KISS
So first up on May 13, 2020 the Court issued this Order, granting Defendant CHATRIE until May 22, 2020 to file any supplemental brief concerning the “Geofencing” warrant & evidence
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110452190
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110452190
Accordingly Defendant CHATRIE filed his supplemental brief late yesterday.
It will cost you $3.00 to pull it down or you can give me a few minutes to fully read his brief & upload it to a public drive, thereby saving you $3.00 but this case is IMPORTANT
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010474698?caseid=453993
It will cost you $3.00 to pull it down or you can give me a few minutes to fully read his brief & upload it to a public drive, thereby saving you $3.00 but this case is IMPORTANT
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010474698?caseid=453993
I’m going to explain this in quasi-legalese;
this case is about Constitutional Rights, data privacy, LEO & Big Tech locking horns over the prior
I offer ZERO opinion about CHATRIE’s guilt or innocence. It’s not my place
Conversely I’ll focus on the broad scope & civil liberties
this case is about Constitutional Rights, data privacy, LEO & Big Tech locking horns over the prior
I offer ZERO opinion about CHATRIE’s guilt or innocence. It’s not my place
Conversely I’ll focus on the broad scope & civil liberties
FACT- LEO did not have a suspect
FACT - they sought a “geofencing warrant” to be served on Google
FACT - Google informed LEO that they had/have a 3 step process.
You’ll want to reread the previous Google Declarations - it’s fascinating https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20
FACT - they sought a “geofencing warrant” to be served on Google
FACT - Google informed LEO that they had/have a 3 step process.
You’ll want to reread the previous Google Declarations - it’s fascinating https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20
Defendant CHATRIE’s position has never changed;
the “geofencing warrant” was overly broad
IMO - I think he’s made a solid argument on that point.
LEO demanded Google filter millions of users and then filter that data down to 19 “devices” +/- 1 HOUR & proximity
Read page 3 closely
the “geofencing warrant” was overly broad
IMO - I think he’s made a solid argument on that point.
LEO demanded Google filter millions of users and then filter that data down to 19 “devices” +/- 1 HOUR & proximity
Read page 3 closely
“..government obtained a warrant in this case, it did not obtain one for Mr. Chatrie’s Location History data. In fact, it did not seek anyone’s data in particular. Rather, the government compelled Google to search everyone’s data in order to develop an investigative lead”
Get it?
Get it?
Again to reiterate in NO way am I defending Defendant CHATRIE
What I am defending are facts, constitutional rights, data privacy. Indeed the overly broad warrant compelled Google to produce data on 19 devices of which 18 had NOTHING to do with the robbery, beyond time & proximity
What I am defending are facts, constitutional rights, data privacy. Indeed the overly broad warrant compelled Google to produce data on 19 devices of which 18 had NOTHING to do with the robbery, beyond time & proximity
during the Course of this case, google disclosed it wasn’t just 19 devices
“Google now explains, the geofence search involved not just 19 users near the bank, but “roughly one-third of active Google users...”
Read the FOOTNOTES- trust me on that;
1/3 of google users= 660 Million
“Google now explains, the geofence search involved not just 19 users near the bank, but “roughly one-third of active Google users...”
Read the FOOTNOTES- trust me on that;
1/3 of google users= 660 Million
In Google’s two declarations;
they used numerous data sources & blend them;
“88% of the coordinates at issue were derived from Wi-Fi signals, as opposed to GPS. Id. None were derived from Bluetooth or cell phone tower data”
Read Pages 8 & 9 CLOSELY
they used numerous data sources & blend them;
“88% of the coordinates at issue were derived from Wi-Fi signals, as opposed to GPS. Id. None were derived from Bluetooth or cell phone tower data”
Read Pages 8 & 9 CLOSELY
Defendant primary argument:
“warrant was invalid because it was a general warrant, fatally overbroad and devoid of particularity...therefore impermissible under the Fourth Amendment” hence “void ab initio”
look at the black box on page 12 - do you get why this case is IMPORTANT?
“warrant was invalid because it was a general warrant, fatally overbroad and devoid of particularity...therefore impermissible under the Fourth Amendment” hence “void ab initio”
look at the black box on page 12 - do you get why this case is IMPORTANT?
I went ahead and uploaded Defendant CHATRIE’s supplemental motion to Suppress ALL evidence obtained via the “geofencing” warrant.
I can not emphasize how important this case is - beyond it’s a case of 1st impression. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
I can not emphasize how important this case is - beyond it’s a case of 1st impression. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
Also See Carpenter v USA
(Defendant CHATRIE heavily relies on this 2018 SCOTUS Ruling) Again I’m not defending him or his argument what I am defending are our civil rights, data privacy & hopefully educating you on why this case matters, a lot
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402
(Defendant CHATRIE heavily relies on this 2018 SCOTUS Ruling) Again I’m not defending him or his argument what I am defending are our civil rights, data privacy & hopefully educating you on why this case matters, a lot
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402
only foolish people “guess” how a Court will rule.
The Defendant does construct a persuasive argument re Google’s TOS;
“Google location records are qualitatively different from the business records to which the third-party doctrine traditionally applies.”
Remember ALT = embedded
The Defendant does construct a persuasive argument re Google’s TOS;
“Google location records are qualitatively different from the business records to which the third-party doctrine traditionally applies.”
Remember ALT = embedded
The interesting part of the Defendant’s 2nd argument is Google’s own TOS are extraordinarily difficult to understand and “opting OUT” isn’t as readily available as “opting in” that he had a presumption of privacy
Do you read all of your TOS? Probably not https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
Do you read all of your TOS? Probably not https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
“Google in its amicus brief and affidavits only confirm that the warrant in this case was uniquely overbroad and so lacking in particularity that it can only be described as the
digital equivalent of an impermissible general warrant”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
digital equivalent of an impermissible general warrant”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
Of the 19 devices, 5 were likely NEVER in the radius
“...three-step, back-and-forth process with the
recipient of a warrant is not a substitute for particularizing that warrant at the outset. Instead, it is
an unconstitutional delegation of discretion to the executing officers”
“...three-step, back-and-forth process with the
recipient of a warrant is not a substitute for particularizing that warrant at the outset. Instead, it is
an unconstitutional delegation of discretion to the executing officers”
I’m finding it really difficult to keep my yapper zipped;
“At no point during this three-step process did the government return to the magistrate to seek further authorization...”
Not that my opinion matters here but this is solid & persuasive brief
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
“At no point during this three-step process did the government return to the magistrate to seek further authorization...”
Not that my opinion matters here but this is solid & persuasive brief
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk
I decided to look back in the docket
To as set your expectations of what’s next;
• USA to respond to Chatrie Supplemental MTS geofencing evidence DUE on May 29th
• June 25th parties file witness list
• July 2, 2020 - in person hearing (provided the EDVA doesn’t issue a new GO)
To as set your expectations of what’s next;
• USA to respond to Chatrie Supplemental MTS geofencing evidence DUE on May 29th
• June 25th parties file witness list
• July 2, 2020 - in person hearing (provided the EDVA doesn’t issue a new GO)
I neglected to give you the Google’s Amicus CURIAE 12/2019
“..warrant and hold that both the Stored Communications Act 18 USC § 2703, and the Fourth Amendment require the government to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause...”
SEE Pg 3 black box
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110200981
“..warrant and hold that both the Stored Communications Act 18 USC § 2703, and the Fourth Amendment require the government to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause...”
SEE Pg 3 black box
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110200981
“Google has observed over a 1,500% increase in the number of geofence requests it received in 2018
compared to 2017; and to date, the rate has increased over 500% from 2018 to 2019”
It’s WAY more than a bank robbery. Get it?
Do I need to remind you of the DEA FUBAR too?
compared to 2017; and to date, the rate has increased over 500% from 2018 to 2019”
It’s WAY more than a bank robbery. Get it?
Do I need to remind you of the DEA FUBAR too?
Again it’s not really about a bank robbery - this is about constitutional protections, data privacy & the astronomical rise & reliance of LE for these kind of “overly broad warrants” - hence civil liberties at play.
Sharing is caring & I saved you $3.00
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14UNE_B8gpQh3-K0RUPfj30rIouKAIBXJ/view?usp=drivesdk
Sharing is caring & I saved you $3.00
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14UNE_B8gpQh3-K0RUPfj30rIouKAIBXJ/view?usp=drivesdk
I also uploaded & updated to the Public Folder
So realistically we won’t know until July how the Court will rule & it could be as late as Fall 2020
Again as warranted I’ll update but I’m glad people are realizing the importance of this case
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
So realistically we won’t know until July how the Court will rule & it could be as late as Fall 2020
Again as warranted I’ll update but I’m glad people are realizing the importance of this case
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
Thought you should know...
So June 12th it is
I can not express how important this case is
Your choice either follow it or not - I’m just here for the bonbons
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110482347
So June 12th it is
I can not express how important this case is
Your choice either follow it or not - I’m just here for the bonbons
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110482347
also of note- look who filed & was granted pro hac vice
Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
If that does NOT convey the import of this case
I’m not sure what else could but alas I’m a chain smoking, alcoholic bored housewife so whadda I know...snort
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110482347
Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
If that does NOT convey the import of this case
I’m not sure what else could but alas I’m a chain smoking, alcoholic bored housewife so whadda I know...snort
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110482347
adding Nathan Judish (DOJ) USA v Chatrie is a pretty BFD
DOJ CCIPS - Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
cc @IdeaGov @lauferlaw @DirkSchwenk @DWUhlfelderLaw
you get the significance of this right? That this increases the stakes bigly
(CCIPS) https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips
DOJ CCIPS - Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
cc @IdeaGov @lauferlaw @DirkSchwenk @DWUhlfelderLaw
you get the significance of this right? That this increases the stakes bigly
(CCIPS) https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips
Cases:
decryption USA v Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2017)
cell-site simulator USA v Patrick, 842 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2016)
Historical cell phone location In re Application of
USA for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) https://www.nacdl.org/Document/SearchingandSeizingCompsDOJManual
decryption USA v Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2017)
cell-site simulator USA v Patrick, 842 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2016)
Historical cell phone location In re Application of
USA for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) https://www.nacdl.org/Document/SearchingandSeizingCompsDOJManual
Again when I saw the Court granted his Pro Hac Vice that was a pretty damn loud bell that rang, because in beltway speak he’s one of if not the best DOJ attorneys in this area of expertise. He’s scary smart
Nos. 13–4625, 13–4626.
Decided: April 16, 2014 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wM2z5qX9JV1CCn6TYemZiacey3U2qZ3h/view?usp=drivesdk
Nos. 13–4625, 13–4626.
Decided: April 16, 2014 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wM2z5qX9JV1CCn6TYemZiacey3U2qZ3h/view?usp=drivesdk
remember how I said the “new” notice of appearance should really give you pause?
Welp - HERE WE ARE - the intersection of @TheJusticeDept reviving a past argument;
“ @Google has been witness to a robbery” do you get how expansive the DOJ’s argument is?
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010517376?caseid=453993
Welp - HERE WE ARE - the intersection of @TheJusticeDept reviving a past argument;
“ @Google has been witness to a robbery” do you get how expansive the DOJ’s argument is?
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010517376?caseid=453993
I didn’t want to give oxygen
I never & I mean NEVER did I think @TheJusticeDept would GO THIS FAR
“defendant provided his location to Google to obtain its location-based services..” USA did not infringe his reasonable expectation of privacy when Google conveyed that information”
I never & I mean NEVER did I think @TheJusticeDept would GO THIS FAR
“defendant provided his location to Google to obtain its location-based services..” USA did not infringe his reasonable expectation of privacy when Google conveyed that information”
My jaw actually dropped. @TheJusticeDept is willing to GO THIS FAR. It is mind numbing. I’m not going to spend a lot of time dissecting their 6/12/20 arguments. As they are largely reiterative from the beginning of this case
I’m STUNNED
Saved you $2.40 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S4qbZPTU1C6MiANN3MC0PfaD6OBdFbeA/view?usp=drivesdk
I’m STUNNED
Saved you $2.40 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S4qbZPTU1C6MiANN3MC0PfaD6OBdFbeA/view?usp=drivesdk
MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Marlo McGriff by Google, LLC as to Okello T. Chatrie. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Marlo McGriff - see next tweet)
Clean up on Declaration Aisle 666
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010526343?caseid=453993
Clean up on Declaration Aisle 666
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010526343?caseid=453993
SUPPLEMENTAL of Marlo McGriff
Notice the date? 6/12/20
“Until recently, a user could enable LH in her account settings during account creation..can occur during device setup...201 7 not possible for a user to enable LH solely by tapping on "YES, I'M IN"
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110526344
Notice the date? 6/12/20
“Until recently, a user could enable LH in her account settings during account creation..can occur during device setup...201 7 not possible for a user to enable LH solely by tapping on "YES, I'M IN"
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110526344
Supplemental of McGiff uploaded to public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ce0yDtZyGgW4q5emoMG9tTdi6vi1ud6U/view?usp=drivesdk
Google’s Motion to Leave https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uKzvArcveC8S7WSdEJZaXmJ7s6iltgFN/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ce0yDtZyGgW4q5emoMG9tTdi6vi1ud6U/view?usp=drivesdk
Google’s Motion to Leave
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uKzvArcveC8S7WSdEJZaXmJ7s6iltgFN/view?usp=drivesdk
Remember I created a share-drive-folder and when warranted I update that folder
So if you don’t want to pay for the filings, you can pull them down from the share-drive I created
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
So if you don’t want to pay for the filings, you can pull them down from the share-drive I created
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
(you’ll want to mute me - I’m getting ready to up load a plethora of updates)
The Order ORDERS Govt to respond to the Defendant 2nd Subpoena by July 13, 2020
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110574395
The Order ORDERS Govt to respond to the Defendant 2nd Subpoena by July 13, 2020
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110574395
Apologies for the out of chronological order
07/02/20 JSR I told you so
“..submitting a subpoena duces tecum... second declaration that Google had filed from Mr. McGriff... application requests that Google provide this information within two weeks”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397
07/02/20 JSR I told you so
“..submitting a subpoena duces tecum... second declaration that Google had filed from Mr. McGriff... application requests that Google provide this information within two weeks”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397
Remember that time people said I was “out of my depths” and I was “making a big deal out of Google’s 2nd Declaration” stating “I’m a delusional idiot”
Welp turns out WRONG AGAIN
Here you can pay the $1.50 or wait for me - your choice
Whispers oh SH!T
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010569370?
Welp turns out WRONG AGAIN
Here you can pay the $1.50 or wait for me - your choice
Whispers oh SH!T
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010569370?
Do NOT besmirch Fed Public Defenders. The distinction of Rule 16 v 17 is a well grounded argument.
Subpoena is narrowly tailored
Again Google re-opened that door. Chatrie’s defense is doing what any attorney should do. Read pages 6-8 closely to understand why this matters, a lot
Subpoena is narrowly tailored
Again Google re-opened that door. Chatrie’s defense is doing what any attorney should do. Read pages 6-8 closely to understand why this matters, a lot
non-legalese
Google & Govt maintain that Chatrie voluntarily opted-in to Location Services
Chatrie maintains no he did not
Google’s (recent) 2nd Declaration showed a deviation
The Court & Chatrie now want Google to produce the records to substantiate Google’s new position
Better?
Google & Govt maintain that Chatrie voluntarily opted-in to Location Services
Chatrie maintains no he did not
Google’s (recent) 2nd Declaration showed a deviation
The Court & Chatrie now want Google to produce the records to substantiate Google’s new position
Better?
Here you can pay the $1.60 via the ECF link
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397
Or you can pay the bargain price of $0 & pull it down from my public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EusKZQh2Ddn0RnGUDpUzNqL5TEDgZpMI/view?usp=drivesdk
-2 more filings, I told you that you should mute me
For the life of me, why this case gets ignored is BONKERS
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397
Or you can pay the bargain price of $0 & pull it down from my public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EusKZQh2Ddn0RnGUDpUzNqL5TEDgZpMI/view?usp=drivesdk
-2 more filings, I told you that you should mute me
For the life of me, why this case gets ignored is BONKERS
As someone who reads, drafts & edits & complies with subpoenas on a weekly (and sometimes daily basis) this is a pretty damn specific subpoena.
Again Google opened the door with the “pop-up window” and Chatrie’s data forensic expert was like HOLD ON
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11uycDyXywTHX0JNOQoU9Ix9JsDWBohO3/view?usp=drivesdk
Again Google opened the door with the “pop-up window” and Chatrie’s data forensic expert was like HOLD ON
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11uycDyXywTHX0JNOQoU9Ix9JsDWBohO3/view?usp=drivesdk
I’ve said repeatedly that this is one of the MOST important cases
It’s a (sorry for yelling)
CASE OF 1st IMPRESSION
The constitutional concerns are massive
7/7/2020 Consent motion
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010574190
7/2020 Order Granting req Additional Time
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110576105
It’s a (sorry for yelling)
CASE OF 1st IMPRESSION
The constitutional concerns are massive
7/7/2020 Consent motion
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010574190
7/2020 Order Granting req Additional Time
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110576105
Here you should be up to date - as I previously mentioned I created a folder for this case
In the event you forgot
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
In the event you forgot
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
-motion of amicus curiae Google;
leave to file documents responsive to the July 22, 2020 subpoena under seal, and good cause -the motion is GRANTED
-ORDERED Google will file a redacted version of the sealed documents on the public record within 7 days
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110637727
leave to file documents responsive to the July 22, 2020 subpoena under seal, and good cause -the motion is GRANTED
-ORDERED Google will file a redacted version of the sealed documents on the public record within 7 days
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110637727
RESPONSE by Google, LLC as to Okello T. Chatrie re 133 Subpoena(s)
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651749
1 Exhibit A
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651750
Exhibit B
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651751
I need a few moments to read the 17 pages & upload to a public drive or you pay pay the $1.70 ReCap doesn’t have this
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651749
1 Exhibit A
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651750
Exhibit B
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651751
I need a few moments to read the 17 pages & upload to a public drive or you pay pay the $1.70 ReCap doesn’t have this
The reason you should pay attention to Google’s responsive filing - it’s complicated but I’ll try to explain it in simple terms.
Location Services FLOW
“user of the Subject Account opted in to the LH
service and enabled Location Reporting for a Samsung device on July 9, 2018...”
Location Services FLOW
“user of the Subject Account opted in to the LH
service and enabled Location Reporting for a Samsung device on July 9, 2018...”
SensorVault
Operating platform of smartphone
Location History data collection depends on the App, Picture, Google Cloud, proximity to cells tower, hand off to the next tower. That's where things get a tiny bit complex bc you’re dealing with polarity & signal strength etc
Operating platform of smartphone
Location History data collection depends on the App, Picture, Google Cloud, proximity to cells tower, hand off to the next tower. That's where things get a tiny bit complex bc you’re dealing with polarity & signal strength etc
Govt made sort of let the door open:
“Device Location” <NOT> Location History
Toggling the device-location setting on or off does not affect whether LH is enabled
-user’s Google Account
or
Location Reporting subsetting within LH is enabled for that device
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNsFzO2BWfVilIOti_jiBziWyIsUB-1V/view?usp=drivesdk
“Device Location” <NOT> Location History
Toggling the device-location setting on or off does not affect whether LH is enabled
-user’s Google Account
or
Location Reporting subsetting within LH is enabled for that device
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNsFzO2BWfVilIOti_jiBziWyIsUB-1V/view?usp=drivesdk
I’ve updated the Public Folder on a public drive
USA v CHATRIE
There are 2 other recent filings specifically a 8/24/20 Order denying Chatrie’s motion re Exempt Speedy trial. It was filed improperly bc he didn’t go through counsel. I’ll upload after COB
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
USA v CHATRIE
There are 2 other recent filings specifically a 8/24/20 Order denying Chatrie’s motion re Exempt Speedy trial. It was filed improperly bc he didn’t go through counsel. I’ll upload after COB
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
Hello insomnia - I see that we meet...up again
Double snaps for the excellent penmanship
—>MOTION to Terminate Speedy Trial Hearing by Okello T. Chatrie
—> sent this directly to the Court
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110679043
Public Drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10xVoseLrGHbYS_5SwQuVEcupLXZaVlig/view?usp=drivesdk
Double snaps for the excellent penmanship
—>MOTION to Terminate Speedy Trial Hearing by Okello T. Chatrie
—> sent this directly to the Court
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110679043
Public Drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10xVoseLrGHbYS_5SwQuVEcupLXZaVlig/view?usp=drivesdk
Ahem... you do understand that geofencing is a pretty big issue - right? https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1302709968081051653?s=20
Oh you thought I had forgotten about this case?
no by now you should know that on weekends I do catch up - it should be noted
“Upon review of the Parties' briefing on the Motion, the Court ORDERS-the Parties to appear, in person...”
want my opinion?
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110778610
no by now you should know that on weekends I do catch up - it should be noted
“Upon review of the Parties' briefing on the Motion, the Court ORDERS-the Parties to appear, in person...”
want my opinion?
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110778610
I’ll keep reminding you WHY this case is so important
STOP IGNORING IT
<not sorry for yelling>
it’s a case of first impression for EDVA & the whole of our judicial system
the fact the Court didn’t rule for/against for any party that tells me... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220816046820679680?s=20
STOP IGNORING IT
<not sorry for yelling>
it’s a case of first impression for EDVA & the whole of our judicial system
the fact the Court didn’t rule for/against for any party that tells me... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220816046820679680?s=20
-the Govt brought in one of the most elite cyber prosecutor tells you a LOT
-meaning you should probably read The Whole thread because I provided you timely updated
-in recent filings both the Govt & google changed a significant amount of TL & details https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
-meaning you should probably read The Whole thread because I provided you timely updated
-in recent filings both the Govt & google changed a significant amount of TL & details https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
In January 2020 this was the Govt & Google’s explanation of the GeoFencing Warrant & Location Services
you should reread it because it’s a baseline & will contextualize the next 3 tweets https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220826581003837442?s=20
you should reread it because it’s a baseline & will contextualize the next 3 tweets https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220826581003837442?s=20
March both the Govt & Google tried to play hide the data scrapes
In my industry we call this “the wobble while walking a tight rope“
You either catch yourself or you fall & go all in while trying to distract the defendant & Court of your previous filings https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20
In my industry we call this “the wobble while walking a tight rope“
You either catch yourself or you fall & go all in while trying to distract the defendant & Court of your previous filings https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20
By May the wobble had fruition into an argument that absolutely strained credulity
hence why I chose to break it down in very simple terms
2 of 3 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1264359811300417538?s=20
hence why I chose to break it down in very simple terms
2 of 3 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1264359811300417538?s=20
By July 2020 it was a full on NEW story by both the Govt & Google
and then we have the point counter point into August 2020 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1281015442119761923?s=20
and then we have the point counter point into August 2020 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1281015442119761923?s=20
10/22/20 status conference
but most importantly 11/17/20 hearing on:
Suppress Evidence Obtained
"Geofence" General Warrant
Buick Lacrosse Search
Mr. Chatrie's Google Accounts Search
Willis Street Search
Mason Dale Drive Search
so that’s the update(s)
but most importantly 11/17/20 hearing on:
Suppress Evidence Obtained
"Geofence" General Warrant
Buick Lacrosse Search
Mr. Chatrie's Google Accounts Search
Willis Street Search
Mason Dale Drive Search
so that’s the update(s)
Yes friends even on vacation I still try to keep up -yesterday a Status (in person) Conference was held.
The following Stipulation was entered It is a BFD
I’m pretty sure it attacks the premise of the original warrant & subsequent warrants re GeoFencing
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110818953
The following Stipulation was entered It is a BFD
I’m pretty sure it attacks the premise of the original warrant & subsequent warrants re GeoFencing
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110818953
Here I uploaded the stipulation to a public drive. If you recall Chatrie’s original argument was the Magistrate Judge “May have errored” & the GeoFencing warrant was overly broad & Google later admitted how they collected location services & LE Req was.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19s-Hmc6-4Re9aDA6_T9FzY6LrrQva8qq/view?usp=drivesdk
likely improper - that they used the GeoFence warrant as a data drag net so even if you didn’t commit the robbery your data was likely sent to LEO simply for ”being in the area” that stipulation tells me the Govt might concede this was an unlawful seizure & Civil rights issue
Meaning eventually the media will realize how important this case is - given the recent disclosures that ICE CBP & more broadly DHS have collected a ton of our data via GeoFence warrants & purchasing from 3rd parties. I assumed most would understand how important this case is..
Case in point last June I sent out a flare - and told you that the Govt‘s notice of Appearance was - a harbinger of bad shit to come. The DOJ brought in:
Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
he’s a pitbull and I mean that in a complementary way... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
he’s a pitbull and I mean that in a complementary way... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
Oh you thought I forgot about this case?
that would be a hard NOPE
November 20, 2020 JSR
Imma gonna need a minute or two to locate document 167 but it’s notable what Google has agreed to & what it wont object to...
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110887476
that would be a hard NOPE
November 20, 2020 JSR
Imma gonna need a minute or two to locate document 167 but it’s notable what Google has agreed to & what it wont object to...
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110887476
Doc 167
defense argues.. in-person testimony is necessary to ensure the witnesses can be sequestered sans access to “communication with others who are not testifying”
essentially Google wants the option of remote testimony whereas Chatrie wasn’t in person
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110865670
defense argues.. in-person testimony is necessary to ensure the witnesses can be sequestered sans access to “communication with others who are not testifying”
essentially Google wants the option of remote testimony whereas Chatrie wasn’t in person
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110865670
It actually occurred to me that I actually never tweeted out the various search warrants
USA
v.
Willis Street
Case No: 3:19-sw-00244
to be clear I am NOT defending Chatrie
This is about GeoFence Warrants & Civil Rights
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158624
USA
v.
Willis Street
Case No: 3:19-sw-00244
to be clear I am NOT defending Chatrie
This is about GeoFence Warrants & Civil Rights
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158624
Again I am in no way defending Chatrie. But I do think it’s important to read the various search warrants.
Case No: 3:19-sw-00244
I went ahead & uploaded the 40 page Affidavit to a public drive
See paragraphs 20-29
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U7_JN0Otu6otbPBDGvwbMtcHrqrx8-dn/view?usp=drivesdk
Follow along if interested
Case No: 3:19-sw-00244
I went ahead & uploaded the 40 page Affidavit to a public drive
See paragraphs 20-29
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U7_JN0Otu6otbPBDGvwbMtcHrqrx8-dn/view?usp=drivesdk
Follow along if interested
this is the SW for Chatrie’s car
Again I’m not defending him or his actions.
It is important that you read the underlying docs, LE didn’t have an ID - geofence warrant to come
USA
v.
Buick Lacrosse 2010 VIN: x1064, VA: xxx-9548
Case No 3:19-sw-00245
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158876
Again I’m not defending him or his actions.
It is important that you read the underlying docs, LE didn’t have an ID - geofence warrant to come
USA
v.
Buick Lacrosse 2010 VIN: x1064, VA: xxx-9548
Case No 3:19-sw-00245
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158876
I’m tweeting the warrants in chronological order because continuity matters as does context & content.
Again this is a case of “First Impression“ and it’s a pretty damn important case re GeoFence warrants
Aug 2019 SW for his car to a public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZVk0LUKZ-VnU4sxmek0J_tMcIeH17fvO/view?usp=drivesdk
Again this is a case of “First Impression“ and it’s a pretty damn important case re GeoFence warrants
Aug 2019 SW for his car to a public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZVk0LUKZ-VnU4sxmek0J_tMcIeH17fvO/view?usp=drivesdk
USA
v.
Information Associated with Google Accounts of [email protected]
Google Account ID: 365520819283
Case No: 3:19-sw-00207
You’ll note the date of this SW - what you don‘t know is Google & LE went back & forth at least 3xs about this warrant
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158394
v.
Information Associated with Google Accounts of [email protected]
Google Account ID: 365520819283
Case No: 3:19-sw-00207
You’ll note the date of this SW - what you don‘t know is Google & LE went back & forth at least 3xs about this warrant
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110158394
Of the 3 search warrants IMO this one is the most important, specifically pages 10 et seq because as you’ll note the Government requested Google’s GeoFencing Data (see next tweet & why that’s important)
I uploaded the Google warrant to a public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qR_MUcARCNI0RgLZNUJZ_AfPS5UqRZKM/view?usp=drivesdk
I uploaded the Google warrant to a public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qR_MUcARCNI0RgLZNUJZ_AfPS5UqRZKM/view?usp=drivesdk
Go back to the TOP of this thread - I think I did a decent job of highlighting what’s important
-Cases of 1st Impressions are VERY important
-Chatrie contends the GeoFence warrant was overly broad
-and a violation of 4th & 6th Amendments
(I tend to agree) https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220816046820679680?s=20
-Cases of 1st Impressions are VERY important
-Chatrie contends the GeoFence warrant was overly broad
-and a violation of 4th & 6th Amendments
(I tend to agree) https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220816046820679680?s=20
Here’s what I mean
LE wanted Google to disclose ALL cell phoned in the area of the robbery aka geoFencing. Which meant a massive data “net” & if you happened to be in the area LE wanted Google to provide your Location Services data.
Google also waffled https://twitter.com/File411/status/1264366732300476420?s=20
LE wanted Google to disclose ALL cell phoned in the area of the robbery aka geoFencing. Which meant a massive data “net” & if you happened to be in the area LE wanted Google to provide your Location Services data.
Google also waffled https://twitter.com/File411/status/1264366732300476420?s=20
When I said Google Waffled
born out in the July August, Sept & Oct decorations
For now we are in a holding pattern
Notwithstanding the Court appears to think there were problems with the original warrants again - case of 1st impression & civil liberties https://twitter.com/File411/status/1300295632045903875?s=20
born out in the July August, Sept & Oct decorations
For now we are in a holding pattern
Notwithstanding the Court appears to think there were problems with the original warrants again - case of 1st impression & civil liberties https://twitter.com/File411/status/1300295632045903875?s=20
