Do you support or oppose the use of geofence warrants by US law enforcement?

Support (40%) – "It's such a powerful tool to fight and dissuade crime; too powerful not to be used. People are fully aware they're walking with a privacy hole in their pocket at all times. If you don't want to be followed, turn your phone off. The fourth amendment argument doesn't hold up: you were in an incriminating area at an incriminating time. That very much rhymes with "probable cause"."

• "If a warrant is required, that means law enforcement can't get this information without a judge's approval, so I fail to see the problem. How is it different than any other kind of warrant that doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment?"

"I'm a bit of a true crime junkie ... true crime podcasts are my go-to when I'm on a long road trip. The number of crimes that are solved using this technology is astounding; there have been a LOT cases solved that wouldn't have had a chance without it. Ask yourself if you'd be against the use of this technology, which is completely anonymous until they narrow down a suspect, if your family member were a victim of violent crime and it was the only chance law enforcement had of finding the perpetrator."

• "We are voluntarily turning our information over to tech companies. If you voluntarily commit a crime, they should be able to be served for information to help locate criminals. I would want law enforcement to use geofence information if my child was kidnapped, etc. If you don't want your information out there, stop giving it over to tech companies."

Oppose (41%) – "I oppose simply because the tech will inevitablely be used by a bad actor (human and/or AI). Besides, surveillance tech will outpace this soon enough. That's where the focus on regulation needs to be at the moment."

• "Geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment, which says, in part, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""

"Geofence warrants are the next step in the creation of Big Brother. Sure, I might use location tracking to find a pizza joint nearby, but in what world should that allow law enforcement access to my location data? If the use of these warrants stands, there is nothing to stop them from using it on whomever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. If I have a landline phone, do I give up my right to private conversations? No, but they could get a warrant to tap my phone. They can’t retroactively record conversations prior to the warrant."

• "Imagine having law enforcement officers showing up at your house because you walked in the vicinity of where a crime was committed. Most of us wouldn't even remember we were there."

Unsure/other (19%) – "If i could trust the government not to use it for retribution, I'd be more likely to be indifferent about it. With a government that can't be trusted, tools like this are dangerous."

• "This is a tough one. I love my devices and appreciate it being aware of what is around me, but while some argue that I should expect less privacy, I actually expect that my location is not available or retained for any purpose beyond the immediate service being performed - making the data useless for law enforcement. On the other hand, it is the device location that they are obtaining which is not a person and does not definitively tie me to a location. While I expect my device is not tracked outside of a device locator service, I see it as similar to a camera in public and private spaces controlled by others. Ultimately, it comes down to tracking and having a memory longer than a fraction of a second necessary to provide the service and the potential abuse. I side on privacy, but think the court will not agree with me."