Those are very wide search requests. There is no reason to think that more specific geofence requests would also be thrown out is there?<p>There is another question here too: with more complex analysis like this, what is a good definition of a geofence? A 45min window around a busy intersection might catch a few 1000 people. But would the same geofence be OK if it was combines: who from intersection A in window1 was also at intersection B in window2? Presumably that would be OK if the number of people caught was lower compared to the number of criminals sought, and it would be much lower.<p>Finally, people should note that that data legally belongs to the company not the user. If Google agreed to cooperate (as mobile phone companies do) it would be entirely legal for all the data (and more) to be turned over and used, no questions asked.
How is this any different than having the police go from business to business asking for security camera footage, analyzing the footage over a time period, connecting faces to names, and then going out and questioning those people? Both seem to be ways of tracking who is in an area at a given time, but geofencing is a significantly more efficient method.
As a resident of Portland, I see police and federal agents disregard judge orders And break laws every single night.<p>Law and order is a myth that is pushed by those seemingly "above" it.