10 ms·
This is an important story, but a little difficult to summarize. Here's my attempt at an overview: 1. Google stores location history data for more of its mobi
by nkurz 9y ago
This is an important story, but a little difficult to summarize. Here's my attempt at an overview:
1. Google stores location history data for more of its mobile users than you might expect. The precision is greatest when GPS is on, but less precise data from cell towers and WiFi sources is used almost any time a Google app is being used on an Android or non-Android phone. There have been cases in the past where Google has recorded such information even when the user has explicitly turned off all location services, but Google says they have stopped this practice.
2. On multiple recent occasions, police in North Carolina have quietly been successful in obtaining search warrants that force Google to turn over these records. Rather than "standard" search warrants asking for the location of a particular suspect in a crime, these "reverse" or "area based" warrants ask for time and location data for all users who have entered a geographical area during a time of interest. The records returned are initially anonymous account numbers, and the police then make followup requests for identifying information of the subset of accounts that they think are of interest to the case.
3. This open-ended "drag net" approach scares some people. Typically, at least in the US, suspects are identified first, and then further information is gathered that confirms or removes the suspicion. The express fear seems to be that innocent people will be falsely accused due to coincidence, but there is also a more general fear that once mechanisms are in place that allow the police to have easy access to location tracking information, this information will end up being abused.
- wildrhythms 9y ago>Google stores location history data for more of its mobile users than you might expect What do you mean by this?
- pmorici 9y agoYou don't have to be using Maps or an app that obviously uses location for Google to be collecting location related information. I have no idea when they do or don't but I'd bet people would be surprised if they found that the gmail app was relaying their location to Google. On the other hand few wouuld be surprised at all if you told them the maps app was sending their location.
- yborg 9y agoNo idea if this is true, but could be for security. If you log in to Gmail in Des Moines and then an hour later from Moldavia, something might be up.
- Digit-Al 9y agoIf you have all location services turned on then your phone tracks your location constantly in real time. Go to My Timeline on Google Maps and it can show you a full map of everywhere you went on any particular day.
- tigershark 9y agoNo, only if you allow to track you even when you’re not using it. Unless you are speaking about android and in that case it may well be like this, no idea honestly.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoMost people have Android, it has an 85% global market share. And yes, this is how Android works. Play Services, which includes "Google Location Services" is preinstalled on essentially every phone that isn't an iPhone, and runs in the background by default. Doesn't matter if you have any apps open or not, Google's collecting location unless you explicitly go in and shut it off.
- Digit-Al 9y ago> No, only if you allow to track you even when you’re not using it. I possibly wasn't clear enough. That's what I meant when I wrote "If you have all location services turned on". Location tracking is part of location services.
- dwaltrip 9y agoHoly shit. So my paranoia about turning off Google location tracking was completely well-founded, and way more quickly than I would have hoped. GDPR can't come soon enough...
- ams6110 9y agoYeah I'm typically not a very paranoid person but I only have location services on when I'm actually using Maps to navigate. My main reason is to squash the annoying notifications about "heavy traffic in your area" at 5:00pm. Yeah, I would never have guessed...
- inetknght 9y agoNow sit back and think about what else people get called paranoid for.
- dwaltrip 9y agoEhh. I am using the term paranioa a bit loosely. Post-snowden, it really wasn't very far fetched at all. But still upsetting.
- joering2 9y agoAny reliable source of your allegation that all phonecalls in USA are being recorded? As far as I know such dragnet is allowed only outside of USA.
- jonathanyc 9y agoEvery time this happens, the same people magically transform from saying “What, are you paranoid?” to “What, are you naive?” The NSA’s surveillance dragnet is a very different situation because they are a government agency, but you could see the same exact phenomenon happened when the Snowden revelations came out. “Do you really think the government cares enough to log all your phone calls? You must be paranoid.” became “Well, obviously the government does this. How could you not expect this?” in the blink of an eye.
- codezero 9y agoMuch less afraid of false accusation and more concerned with incidental data being used against me later, or being used to build a profile the police can use in some other way.
- lopmotr 9y agoIs this actually a real problem for normal non-criminal people? Murders happen every day and this would help deter or prevent repeat offenses. But having information about you that's correct, and can't be used in court because it was obtained without the correct warrant, when is that ever a problem? I'm not talking about high profile journalists or terrorist suspects. Just normal people like you.
- nothrabannosir 9y agoI live in a continent with a lot of fresh memories about uncomfortable answers to your questions. No need to go as far back as WW II: take a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi for a painfully contemporary read. It’s astonishing how quickly we forget. It’s astonishing and painful, to the memories of those whose pain and sacrifice was, in the end, wasted on us :(
- bsder 9y ago> Is this actually a real problem for normal non-criminal people? Yes, it is. Quite a few people get misidentified based upon "bad paperwork" by the police. If the police mistake the IP address and Google identifies it as me, I'm now at risk even though I did absolutely nothing. Making the police engage in positive identification is simple safety.
- groby_b 9y agoWe have such an astonishing amount of laws and codes that everybody is guilty of something. And the more data is available on you, the more you enable the government to go on a fishing expedition, should they ever dislike you. But that's only the selfish motivation. The wider reason is that mass surveillance can easily be used to silence dissent. And if you think that's far-fetched for the US, I invite you to read up on e.g. COINTELPRO.
- pasbesoin 9y agoIn addition to all the other, very serious concerns, I'll also ask this: How long until these records are available for subpoena, e.g. in a divorce case? (Maybe -- hopefully! -- not in area sweeps, but nonetheless, where was the other party and who was in proximity. As I'm writing this, well, maybe they will ask for all connections in proximity, that list then to be whittled down to a list of candidates (per the police's approach in the OP's story)). When are police going to start sweeping such data up en masse, looking for e.g. parole violations? When will every "free association" be a tracked association?
- pkilgore 9y ago> How long until these records are available for subpoena, e.g. in a divorce case? I see nothing preventing this information being sought in U.S. discovery right now--at least in Federal litigation[0]. That isn't to say that the subpoena won't be squashed by a court for one of the traditional rationales under FRCP 26(b).[1] >When are police going to start sweeping such data up en masse, looking for e.g. parole violations? Arguably runs afoul of the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, although I do not pretend to be an expert on criminal law. That said, I understand the fourth amendment to be a low bar these days. > When will every "free association" be a tracked association? Rhetorical question? [0] Your specific example, divorces, are state law in the US. I don't do that, and the relevant laws / cases can change on a state-by-state basis. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
- pasbesoin 9y agoThanks for the response. Yes, the last part could be considered rhetorical. Except, I think that is the very real direction some -- including especially some already in authority, in the U.S. as well as around the world -- want to take things. On the other hand, maybe my question is rhetorical, in that the tracking is already in place.
- pasbesoin 9y agoP.S. I don't know why, from the lightness of your text now, you apparently got downvotes. I gave you an upvote, when I responded.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- martin-adams 9y agoI once used an app to record my location, which I'm sure was in my Google account. It mis-recorded my location to be in the centre of a park in the town I was in the middle of the night, but I was actually at home asleep. Needless to say, it crossed my mind if this data could be used as a false positive in any investigation if they got hold of all people recorded as being in that area.
- wavegeek 9y agoThe use of this information in the hands of the statistically incompetent will lead to miscarriages of justice and disaster. This basically institutionalizes the prosecutor's fallacy.
- bigiain 9y ago"statistically incompetent" and/or over ambitious and over zealous career climbing LEO...
- mirimir 9y agoInnocent people are commonly investigated because they were nearby when crimes were committed. Or because they somewhat match a victim's description of the attacker. Or because they're driving a vehicle that somewhat matches a description. But this is taking it to another level. Here, location and time are the only identifiers. Once you've identified someone who was at the location of the crime when it was committed, they were either a perpetrator or a witness. Or maybe neither, because they weren't close enough in space and time. But anyway, what happens next? Police hope to get a confession? Maybe some physical evidence. Or witnesses. But then, people often lie. And there's less opportunity for an alibi, except maybe a friend who says he was there with you. But his phone had better agree with yours. And really, it's hard to imagine that someone doing serious crime would be carrying a smartphone. At least, one that's not turned off, and in a Faraday bag. But then, some criminals are just plain stupid, I guess.
- rdtsc 9y ago> But then, people often lie Police can lie with impunity when interrogating and it is all legal and protected mostly. They can get innocent people to plead guilty to all kind of crimes the didn't commit simply by threatening them.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y agoThis is why you should never be interviewed by a police officer unless you have council present. I know it's an Internet meme, but it's true.