4 ms·

Thanks for the summary. One other thing that should be scrutinized in general: correlating cell phone location with actual person location is used as concrete

Thanks for the summary. One other thing that should be scrutinized in general: correlating cell phone location with actual person location is used as concrete admissible evidence.

r00fus 9y ago
Another consideration: how can one challenge this evidence on-par with an hope of success? I imagine personal records showing discrepancies or outright fabrication on the carrier's part would not easily be accepted. Finally, the carrier was provided, but the phone itself wasn't identified. Was this a dumb phone, Android or iOS device? Does it matter?
- joecool1029 9y ago
  >Finally, the carrier was provided, but the phone itself wasn't identified. Was this a dumb phone, Android or iOS device? Does it matter? It does not matter. Every carrier maintains a list of connected to towers for a month or more. This is the data those companies would be providing to LEO.
- ubersync 9y ago
  Another consideration: How easy is it to spoof a sim card? Someone might be trying to implicate the accused by duplicating their sim card and taking a phone with the duplicated sim card to every robbery they commit.
  - joecool1029 9y ago
    > Another consideration: How easy is it to spoof a sim card? Spoof? No. You can clone a card if you get physical access to it and it uses the older COMP128v1 encryption as the key is just 56-bit to bruteforce. This allows you to use their IMSI. You'd also need to spoof the IMEI of the target device, which can only be done easily on older phones (original iPhone with early baseband is one) or with custom built solutions (think SDR, hackrf stuff) I am fairly certain most major US carriers are not using the old-style SIM card anymore for this very reason. To support 3G and later on LTE, the cards would have to be upgraded.
ghaff 9y ago
Although the point I think you're making is pretty much true for all circumstantial evidence. Sure maybe someone who looks like you took your car for a drive in the middle of the night while you were sleeping, but absent a plausible alternative theory, a jury is going to be skeptical. There often aren't smoking guns.
Shivetya 9y ago
this will fly likely under the same rules as red light cameras which send a ticket to the owner regardless of who is driving. you "car/phone/spirit/thoughts" were there so you are considered there. going to be interesting if the government loses the case if rules and regulation are pushed through Congress mandating availability. they could try to declare it public property since it does pass through public airspace/radio space. all sorts of angles they can push. (its coming, just when and with what protections for our privacy will be most important)
- rayiner 9y ago
  > this will fly likely under the same rules as red light cameras which send a ticket to the owner regardless of who is driving. you "car/phone/spirit/thoughts" were there so you are considered there In most states, the red light ordinance makes the driver liable, not the owner. There is no "you were there in proxy" rule of the sort you suggest. The law merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner was driving. Also, Courts have upheld the presumption because red light tickets are civil infractions, not criminal penalties. The due process clause recognizes that the amount of process "due" (i.e. warranted, or appropriate in a given context) depends on the magnitude of the deprivation of property rights at issue. Civil infractions thus create lower due process concerns than criminal cases. In this case, there was no similar presumption along the lines of: "your phone was here, therefore you were here." It was simply circumstantial evidence of the sort regularly used in criminal prosecutions (e.g. your business card was found at the murder scene). The real concern here is an evidentiary issue. Cell tower tracking isn't very precise. Courts need to make sure that the jury appropriately understands the lack of precision in the data. Courts are often very bad at this. E.g. courts often don't permit defendants to argue to the jury that, even though the probability of a false random match in DNA testing is remote in theory, in practice the odds of wrong results due to lab error are astronomically higher (almost 1 in 100).
Fjolsvith 9y ago
If you are going to commit a crime, just leave your phone at home. Then you could say, "I wasn't there!"

Thanks for the summary. One other thing that should be scrutinized in general: correlating cell phone location with actual person location is used as concrete admissible evidence.

r00fus 9y ago

Another consideration: how can one challenge this evidence on-par with an hope of success? I imagine personal records showing discrepancies or outright fabrication on the carrier's part would not easily be accepted. Finally, the carrier was provided, but the phone itself wasn't identified. Was this a dumb phone, Android or iOS device? Does it matter?

joecool1029 9y ago
>Finally, the carrier was provided, but the phone itself wasn't identified. Was this a dumb phone, Android or iOS device? Does it matter? It does not matter. Every carrier maintains a list of connected to towers for a month or more. This is the data those companies would be providing to LEO.
ubersync 9y ago
Another consideration: How easy is it to spoof a sim card? Someone might be trying to implicate the accused by duplicating their sim card and taking a phone with the duplicated sim card to every robbery they commit.
- joecool1029 9y ago
  > Another consideration: How easy is it to spoof a sim card? Spoof? No. You can clone a card if you get physical access to it and it uses the older COMP128v1 encryption as the key is just 56-bit to bruteforce. This allows you to use their IMSI. You'd also need to spoof the IMEI of the target device, which can only be done easily on older phones (original iPhone with early baseband is one) or with custom built solutions (think SDR, hackrf stuff) I am fairly certain most major US carriers are not using the old-style SIM card anymore for this very reason. To support 3G and later on LTE, the cards would have to be upgraded.

ghaff 9y ago

Although the point I think you're making is pretty much true for all circumstantial evidence. Sure maybe someone who looks like you took your car for a drive in the middle of the night while you were sleeping, but absent a plausible alternative theory, a jury is going to be skeptical. There often aren't smoking guns.

Shivetya 9y ago

this will fly likely under the same rules as red light cameras which send a ticket to the owner regardless of who is driving. you "car/phone/spirit/thoughts" were there so you are considered there. going to be interesting if the government loses the case if rules and regulation are pushed through Congress mandating availability. they could try to declare it public property since it does pass through public airspace/radio space. all sorts of angles they can push. (its coming, just when and with what protections for our privacy will be most important)

rayiner 9y ago
> this will fly likely under the same rules as red light cameras which send a ticket to the owner regardless of who is driving. you "car/phone/spirit/thoughts" were there so you are considered there In most states, the red light ordinance makes the driver liable, not the owner. There is no "you were there in proxy" rule of the sort you suggest. The law merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner was driving. Also, Courts have upheld the presumption because red light tickets are civil infractions, not criminal penalties. The due process clause recognizes that the amount of process "due" (i.e. warranted, or appropriate in a given context) depends on the magnitude of the deprivation of property rights at issue. Civil infractions thus create lower due process concerns than criminal cases. In this case, there was no similar presumption along the lines of: "your phone was here, therefore you were here." It was simply circumstantial evidence of the sort regularly used in criminal prosecutions (e.g. your business card was found at the murder scene). The real concern here is an evidentiary issue. Cell tower tracking isn't very precise. Courts need to make sure that the jury appropriately understands the lack of precision in the data. Courts are often very bad at this. E.g. courts often don't permit defendants to argue to the jury that, even though the probability of a false random match in DNA testing is remote in theory, in practice the odds of wrong results due to lab error are astronomically higher (almost 1 in 100).

Fjolsvith 9y ago

If you are going to commit a crime, just leave your phone at home. Then you could say, "I wasn't there!"