Geofence Technology Is Not Used to Determine Guilt

Misbar’s Investigation has found that it is false for Glitch.News to claim that Google’s geofencing program will make people guilty merely for being near the scene of a crime. This article appears to have misrepresented an article from a reputable website. 

In late 2020, Wired launched a report that stated that police departments were increasingly relying on Google and other large tech firms’ geofencing data to identify crime suspects. 

The Wired article does state that the police are using geofence warrants as an investigative technique. It also highlights that some have been critical of geofence warrants, citing that they are an invasion of privacy that lead to unconstitutional searches. 

Additionally, both Wired and the Glitch.News cite an example from 2018, when Google geofencing was used to identify a suspect in a murder case. The geofencing data in this case stated that the suspect, Jorge Molina, was at the crime scene. But it later transpired that Molina had lent his phone to a man, his mother’s boyfriend, who had actually murdered the victim, and Molina’s account was logged into the device at this time. 

Molina’s case shows how Google geofencing data, and data from other large tech companies, can sometimes implicate the wrong person in a crime. However, it did not result in a guilty conviction for Molina. While he did spend six days in jail, he was later freed once the authorities had determined that he was innocent. He also sued for wrongful arrest.

There are legitimate concerns about the constitutionality of the police using geofence warrants in their investigations. For instance, in another case, an innocent man’s name was given to a journalist in connection to burglary, merely because the man was within 170 feet of the crime. But while geofencing data has led to incorrect arrests and defamation, it is not used solely to determine guilt, as the source article claims.