SCOTUS Oral Argument: Chatrie v. United States #6

本站添加: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]In this case, you had 19 people within the geofence whose data was exposed, as well as two other devices whose actual identity was exposed. And you know, Google received 9,000 of these warrants in 2019. So, I don't think an you know, innocent person should have to shut off these services as a condition of not being served with a warrant.

[00:00:15]>> make a difference? Did would it matter if only 1% of users enabled location history? I I don't think it should matter. Um, the government has made a point about the fact that only 1/3 did it enabled it, but I actually don't think those matters really uh are significant. Because if you view a person as having, you know, a property interest in the data, in other words, if you treat one's account as kind of a virtual safety deposit box, then I don't think it matters how many people have these these virtual safety deposit boxes. Even if it's only one, if the legal relationship to the data is similar to the legal relationship between