4 ms·

>What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down? Then

by dqv 10y ago

>What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down? Then I'd say "wow, why is this cop using an inaccurate and highly-likely-to-be-thrown-out-in-court method when the LEA has a stingray that allows them to track the driver directly and accurately?" >this is local law enforcement Yes, the poor, good, moral, ethical local law enforcement with their cheap and useless cellphone MiTM. https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-...

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Yeah, every cop investigating every crime is on shaky ground and up to no good because they have Stingrays. That's quite the logical Deus Ex Machina.
- dqv 10y ago
  The point being made is that a cop is not ever going to need to use Uber, that they shouldn't use Uber, and that (if for some reason they get all the way to court having used Uber as the basis for their evidence) they should have known that they shouldn't use Uber. Further, if they did need Uber, it would be by way of tracking the app's use from the suspect's phone directly.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Enough with the derailment tactics already, this doesn't make for a civil discussion. Bringing in new arguments like referring to stingrays (as itf they were owned or used universally) is BS and just a way to avoid responding to the legitimate question that was presented by the gp.
- dqv 10y ago
  Any place using such a novel technique as tracking someone on Uber is almost universally likely to have access to a stingray. A stingray is arguably a more accurate and legally enforceable device. And to add (edit): It's not a derailment, it's the logical conclusion that any area that has enough economic activity to be target by Uber definitely has enough resources to supply LEA with a stingray.
r00fus 10y ago
So your argument is that the police should be using the evil tools they already (supposedly) have? Way to paint with a broad brush. It's not legal in many jurisdictions. Also Stingrays are passive not active devices - if the theoretical Uber driver is out of range, it won't see the Stingray as a tower.

by dqv 10y ago

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Yeah, every cop investigating every crime is on shaky ground and up to no good because they have Stingrays. That's quite the logical Deus Ex Machina.

dqv 10y ago
The point being made is that a cop is not ever going to need to use Uber, that they shouldn't use Uber, and that (if for some reason they get all the way to court having used Uber as the basis for their evidence) they should have known that they shouldn't use Uber. Further, if they did need Uber, it would be by way of tracking the app's use from the suspect's phone directly.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Enough with the derailment tactics already, this doesn't make for a civil discussion. Bringing in new arguments like referring to stingrays (as itf they were owned or used universally) is BS and just a way to avoid responding to the legitimate question that was presented by the gp.

dqv 10y ago
Any place using such a novel technique as tracking someone on Uber is almost universally likely to have access to a stingray. A stingray is arguably a more accurate and legally enforceable device. And to add (edit): It's not a derailment, it's the logical conclusion that any area that has enough economic activity to be target by Uber definitely has enough resources to supply LEA with a stingray.

r00fus 10y ago

So your argument is that the police should be using the evil tools they already (supposedly) have? Way to paint with a broad brush. It's not legal in many jurisdictions. Also Stingrays are passive not active devices - if the theoretical Uber driver is out of range, it won't see the Stingray as a tower.