4 ms·
This sort of mass tracking shouldn't exist and it certainly should be illegal to sell this data. Anyone who is capable of tracking (e.g. satellite companies, c
by state_less 8y ago
This sort of mass tracking shouldn't exist and it certainly should be illegal to sell this data. Anyone who is capable of tracking (e.g. satellite companies, cell companies, etc...) should be required to immediately report any request to access this sort of data. If it's a government, force them to publicly give reason and use that to scope the investigation. Our technology makes this possible, our culture doesn't have to.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago"Publicly" won't fly. But "let's see your warrant"? Yes, that should be workable. I'd like to see that become the standard corporate behavior. I'm pretty sure that won't happen, though...
- state_less 8y agoI don't see how publicly won't fly. If for the sake of an investigation, they need discretion, that should have a reveal time or reveal condition that is not too broad. For example, "When the investigation is complete or two years, whichever is shorter." Then match up requests (including rational in the form) and responses. Requests outside that are illegal.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoSure, I could go with two years. Even that's probably too long. But publicly announcing the tracking requests at the time they start? Announce to the suspect that they're being tracked? That's a bit of an unreasonable handicap to an investigation. A warrant is not an unreasonable handicap. No warrant? No data. If you don't need the data bad enough to get a warrant, you don't need the data bad enough to get it.
- bitexploder 8y agoTechnically you have to explicitly opt in. But software has bugs, sometimes trivial ones.
- kridsdale1 8y agoAlso you can bet your ass NSA has a feed
- bitexploder 8y agoThey have first class access that makes what LocationSmart has look like a toy.