25 ms·
“Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
- VectorLock 8y agoLooking at the graph of reverse location searches over time (despite being an atrocious way to present the information) shows that there were a lot when it was first started and then quickly petered off. Is this an indication of its efficiency, pushback from Google, or denials from judges, I wonder? Edit: Or they were just hot on it after the training and then their interest petered out.
- rocqua 8y agoOr they had a backlog of active cases where it was effective, and then it slowed to a steady-state of incoming cases.
- _bxg1 8y agoEvery time I see one of these I'm validated in my decision to switch to Apple.
- DKnoll 8y agoPersonally I'm not a fan of Apple either (for non-privacy related reasons.) I'm planning to move my device (Pixel 2) to CopperheadOS to eliminate my concerns with Google services.
- dtech 8y agoThis will not protect you, cell phone operators will turn over cellphones connected to nearby towers with a warrant.
- DKnoll 8y agoNot where I come from. Also, my main concern is a foreign company (Google) basically being a private intelligence agency and possessing information on my movements, interests and other things.
- dannyr 8y agoIf you read the article, "Location services may collect and share data with companies like Google and Apple, who in turn may share it with law enforcement agencies. "
- nostromo 8y agoThe article is pointing the finger at Google apps on iOS devices: “But while Apple's location data processing is anonymous, two hard-to-find settings— "Location History" and "Web and App Activity" — allow Google to keep track of everything their users search, and everywhere they go. It affects all Android users, and iPhone or iPad users with apps like Google Maps installed on their device.
- sveme 8y agoIf you switch off GPS for Google Maps on your iPhone, you should be save. Did that and only use Google Maps now to sanity-check Apple Maps traffic conditions.
- jacquesm 8y agoSafe from Google and Apple but not from cell tower triangulation.
- taneq 8y agoWell yeah, you can be followed by a guy in a trenchcoat too, no matter what your phone's privacy settings are.
- vkou 8y agoThe difference between cell tower triangulation, and Google/Apple services tracking your location is small. The difference between cell tower triangulation, and being followed by a guy in a trenchcoat is not. In fact, there's a number of categorical differences between the first two, and the third. 1. The first two are automated. 2. The first two are recorded in a computer-searchable database. 3. The first two, by nature, are capable of scaling to encompass every cell-phone owner. You're not going to get the 'set a spook to follow people' approach to accomplish any one of these.
- stunt 8y agoApple is the same. There are a lot of hidden regulations when you work on that scale.
- dannyr 8y agoYup. Both Apple and Google has to give user data to law enforcement when issued a search warrant.
- stunt 8y agobtw, this is the same story even if you use a feature phone. Mobile operators are also sharing data and they have to keep all your data and activities for at least 6 months. Telecommunications is full of these regulations.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- creato 8y agoWhat is "hidden" about this regulation? It was a search warrant approved by a judge. A concerningly broad search warrant, which is now being scrutinized.
- _bxg1 8y ago"But while Apple's location data processing is anonymous, two hard-to-find settings— "Location History" and "Web and App Activity" — allow Google to keep track of everything their users search, and everywhere they go. It affects all Android users, and iPhone or iPad users with apps like Google Maps installed on their device." iOS keeps as much location data local to the device as possible, and anonymizes the rest. In many cases there's nothing for them to give up. Also, you could even use Google apps and just disable background location for those. Because unlike Android, iOS actually respects that choice.
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoYour mobile provider will be just as helpful with law enforcement. They've been selling your location data for a long time.
- tjpnz 8y agoI'm surprised how you don't hear about this information being used in missing persons cases.
- izacus 8y agoIt doesn't bring clicks, outrage or Apple advertisers out of the woods, so it also doesn't get featured on HN. But it's certanly used to track missing persons and kidnappings for a long while now.
- jacquesm 8y agoIt isn't all that useful. A friend has a business that helps LE on missing persons cases and while cell phone tower data can give at least an idea on where a phone was on last it does not say anything about whether that phone was still in the possession of the person that it belonged to and whether or not that is simply where it ran out of juice. It may give a vector for general direction of travel. So while it may be useful it is not a magical device, and more often than not leads to a lot of misdirected effort.
- joking 8y agoIn Spain there was a case of a missing woman, and the authorities tracked phones which moved in the same direction of the victims one to get a reduced list. The attacker disposed of the phone from a bridge after 5 or 10 minutes, but even with that the police have already an small list of suspects and have an start point to investigate. Anyway, they have to wait and they didn't get to trap the attacker until a year later when he tried to attack other victim.
- _bxg1 8y agoTrue, though they only get which cell towers you're connected to, not your actual GPS location.
- newnewpdro 8y agoEvery time I read such misguided comments praising Apple's surveillance devices vs. the competitors I lose a little bit more of what's left of my faith in humanity. Even the supposedly tech literate among us have completely lost sight of the fundamentals.
- rimliu 8y agoI am just curious, what makes you think you are well-informed?
- chosenbreed37 8y ago> I am just curious, what makes you think you are well-informed? I don't it's a claim to be well-informed or even better informed as compared to others. I dare say everyone in the HN is reasonably well informed on a variety of subjects. I think it is a critique of the limitations in reasoning. A person can be well informed and still succumb to flawed reasoning. No matter how well informed one is one can still have blind spots. E.g. an allegiance to a particular device or OS in the hope of being safe from surveillance.
- millstone 8y agoApple's position is that Maps computes as much on-device as possible (reminders, etc), and everything else is produced using rotating randomly-generated identifiers that can't be tied to your Apple ID. What's your vision for a better system?
- dtech 8y agoThis is a law requirement, and Apple complies and delivers the data too. No reason to bash Google over this particular thing.
- izacus 8y agoWhy did you have to make this about corporate cheerleading? Even though Apple shares location information per request as well (e.g. Find My Friends information is going through iCloud and will get shared with the authorities). Are you more validated if the shared data sent to police have a nice little Apple logo on top?
- dcw303 8y agoReading the comments in this subthread made me paranoid enough to check my ios privacy settings. I've blocked access to any shifty apps like Google or Facebook, the only thing that marks any specific place is Significant Locations under System Services. And that has the following text: "Significant Locations are encrypted and cannot be read by Apple."
- jjbinx007 8y agoSo would this work the other way around? Leave your phone at home to prove you didn't go somewhere?
- oh_sigh 8y agoNo, because people leave their phone at home all the time, but phones rarely go on trips without the owner.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoSo, send phone on trip to "prove" I wasn't somewhere else; put it in my kids backpack, fix it under my neighbours car.
- nagyf 8y agoSo you put it in your kid's backpack and later the police will see that you spent your day in an elementary school. Does not seem like a very good alibi. The same is true for your neighbor, they will see that you spent your day in the parking lot of your neighbor's workplace, pretty suspicious.
- amvalo 8y agoSo put in your wife’s purse and say you spent the day with your wife (maybe spousal privelege would be useful there)
- baud147258 8y agoOr hide it in a bar or at your workplace for a day
- VectorLock 8y agoI'm sure someone has tried to use their digital records as an alibi.
- astura 8y agoThat's one piece of evidence of many a prosecutor and/or jury would take into consideration; just like the other way around.
- yread 8y agoDo they also give it to you so that you can use it in defense?
- thecatspaw 8y agoIf it gets brought up by them during trial then they need to submit it during discovery IANAL TINLA etc
- warp_factor 8y agothis article convinced me to never use an Android phone nor Google maps ever again,
- RestlessMind 8y agoBecause you think Apple (iOS, Maps) is not susceptible to warrants? Or is there some alternative which won't track you at all?
- warp_factor 8y agoApple doesn't track you by default (or when it does, it sends the data anonymously). The Apps on ios might track you, and that's why I will not use Google maps again. Your provider indeed tracks you, but at least for now, the accuracy is way below GPS. It is an issue and we should all be worried about slippery slope that it puts us all on.
- Brotkrumen 8y ago>it sends the data anonymously It shouldn't send anything at all if Apple was privacy minded. A warrant for all anonymous data from that location combined with a provider data from that cell and the user isn't anonymous anymore.
- renholder 8y ago>It shouldn't send anything at all if Apple was privacy minded. You can turn location services off at the device-level, which stops everything from collecting your location data. You can disallow apps, individually, from having access to your location data, as well; but that requires granual settings that most people aren't aware of and/or can't be arsed to go check every time that they install an app. If I recall, correctly, apps using the Facebook SDK will still retrieve and push the last known location (yay for pointers...) but that's a problem with the app (and Facebook) moreso than it is with Apple. So, this was just a long-winded and pointless way to say, you can prevent the data from being sent but, agreed, Apple could do slightly better in this area; however, I think it's a trade-off betwixt absolutely strict-privacy (e.g.: explicit deny until approved) and usability for them.
- knolan 8y agoSeveral years ago while living in London we had a visit from the police because they were able to access my partner’s Oyster travel card registration details — she had provided her home address and I hadn’t. They were following up on an apparently minor assault and pulled tbe Oyster card details for everyone on a specific train. Considering this is a city with ubiquitous CCTV, smart phones are just another data source.
- dazc 8y agoIs there still any advantage to having a registered oyster card?
- heavenlyblue 8y agoYeah - now they'll simply pull your contactless card details instead. No need to register at all.
- antihero 8y agoYeah, because if you have a weekly/monthly Travel Card (worth it if you travel frequently), you can't load that onto a contactless card, just an Oyster. And if you lose that, it's £150+ down the drain unless it's registered.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Jerry2 8y ago>Considering this is a city with ubiquitous CCTV, smart phones are just another data source. London is quickly becoming one of the most dystopian cities in the world. I recently read a story [0] how London police are now face-scanning pedestrians and you are not allowed to cover up you face. If you protest this scanning, you're issued a £90 fine. You're basically treated like cattle. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recognition-cameras-technology-london-trial-met-police-face-cover-man-fined-a8756936.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...
- JoeSmithson 8y agoSo essentially they asked for anonymised lists of phones (i.e. not even the actual numbers) that had been in the locations where the suspects had been, then cross-referenced these to find potential suspects, presumably finding some phones that exactly matched the reported movements of the suspects which they then made a second application to de-anonymise. Do people honestly think this is disproportionate for investigating a home invasion? It seems like they have been quite privacy conscious in my opinion. What would have been a better way to investigate this crime?
- michaelt 8y agoDo people honestly think this is disproportionate for investigating a home invasion? I think the concern is not Google sharing this data once they have it. The concern is Google having it, in the first place (in personally identifiable form). There's a lot of unclarity about which free and paid Google services and products are and aren't tracked. Who knows if their DNS resolver or their wifi-visibility-to-phone-location service or google-maps-used-without-logging-in would have come up in such a search warrant?
- bagacrap 8y agoHold on, this is great justification for Google having this data (in addition to the real reason, which is to provide better location-based services). Due to the anonymization process, no one's privacy is unduly infringed upon, and investigators have a tool for catching criminals. Do you not see that last bit as a societal win?
- bepvte 8y agoWe know, because its outlined in their privacy policy that they store dns logs for 24 hours, and store the location data of devices which allow the location history feature, and provide data to governments who send a proper search warrant with reasonable cause.
- pubutil 8y agoMy problem isn’t so much that Google is storing location data if people have agreed to allow it. The semantics of agreeing to enable location history are arguable, but by default Google’s location history feature is opt-out. I’d prefer it be not be that way, but that’s a debate for another time. What I do have a problem with is what this line from the article suggests: >An Associated Press investigation last year revealed that even with these settings disabled, Google continued to collect and store users' location data. Maybe I’m missing something from the TOS, but it seems to me that the opt-out process doesn’t do what it describes; so what is it for?
- jamiethompson 8y agoI find it concerning that a judge, being presented with a textual description of four GPS coordinates would sign off on a warrant without simply asking... "okay, can you show me that on a map then?"
- candiodari 8y agoIn the criminal justice system a judge is asked, in 15 minutes average per case, to see if there is any reason at all to suspect this person, nothing more. A judge would sign off given just the list of coordinates, and legally, they'd be correct in doing so.
- jamiethompson 8y agoThat's the difference though. This isn't a warrant against a person. It's a warrant against "anyone who google recorded as being in an area"
- VectorLock 8y agoPolice search areas around crimes, people known to be in those locations (log books, identifications on surveillance), and warrants against locations searching for evidence. Warrants don't need to be against a person.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThey don't typically search those areas retroactively. And there is a qualitative and scary difference between a few cops walking around versus processing every single person that drives by on a major road for tens of hours.
- freeflight 8y ago> Police search areas around crimes That is true, but these areas usually do not involve the private homes of people. Police can ask to look around, but if the owner of the home declines, then police have to come back with a search warrant and afaik that warrant needs to be specific to that property. This is the digital equivalent of that but applied on a whole geographical area, basically a "digital bulk search warrant". Because I doubt these warrants will surface to the judge how many people will be affected, in a very invasive way. When you factor in much of our modern lives are saved on servers of Google or Apple, then this is actually a much worse invasion of privacy than just having a couple of unis take a quick look through your home physically. This is the equivalent of them sitting down in front of your phone/computer and being able to spend hours upon hours on browsing through your private data.
- bloak 8y agoHow often does someone carrying out a planned crime carry a phone with them that is switched on, these days? Use of mobile phone data by the police has been standard practice since 2001, at least, and widely publicised.
- chillydawg 8y agoI'm sure plenty of criminals are idiots.
- hrktb 8y agoI think at some point people will go to jail because they turned off and on their phone before and after a horrible murder that happened nearby.
- pdkl95 8y agoAccording to Zoz in his excellent DEFCON 22 talk "Don't Fuck It Up!"[1] on the difficulties of OPSEC, this type of correlation has been in use for years. >[2] Matching entry / exit point – we know specifically they look for that, so don’t match the last use and first use of phones, overlap it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1q4Ir2J8P8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1q4Ir2J8P8 [2] http://privacy-pc.com/articles/dont-fuck-it-up-6-opsec-with-phones.html http://privacy-pc.com/articles/dont-fuck-it-up-6-opsec-with-...
- vkou 8y ago> How often does someone carrying out a planned crime carry a phone with them that is switched on, these days? All the time.
- coldtea 8y ago>How often does someone carrying out a planned crime carry a phone with them that is switched on, these days? Almost all of the time.
- bloak 8y agoDo you have a source for that? I read somewhere how the police once solved a crime by analysing a cigarette butt left behind in a stolen car, but within a few years it was quite common for them to find that a stolen car had its ashtray filled with cigarette butts apparently taken from a public ashtray: even joyriders were clever enough to thus outwit forensics. So it would seem weird to me if armed robbers or professional burglars were carrying switched on phones, and most crimes are committed by people who commit multiple crimes, as I understand it, people who have plenty of experience of how the police and the courts operate. In online discussions there are always people who claim that criminals are idiots, but I don't think that's accurate. I reckon that when it comes to crime, most criminals are in effect a lot more intelligent than I am with my elite university degree and so on. But in general, the older I get, the more aware I become of my own limitations and the less likely I am to dismiss anyone else as an idiot.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoquestion: can an appeals judge later throw out the warrant, if the judge applied the law "incorrectly"? This technique makes sense for cops. For a lot of killings there's a lit of potential suspects so this weeds out all but a few.
- cf141q5325 8y agoIt doesnt weed out anyone. You dont have to have your phone with you during a crime.
- onetimemanytime 8y agosure, but not everyone plans it perfectly. Plus, some are crimes of opportunity
- VectorLock 8y agoIANAL but I think the law says "if the judge says its okay, its okay."
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>"if the judge says its okay, its okay." Sure but a superior judge can overrule the previous judge.
- Animats 8y agoWhy did the police ask Google, and not the cellular operators? They know who was where to the level of positioning detail this requires.
- dsl 8y agoBecause Google has all the data for every Android user and many iOS users vs having to send requests to up to 5 companies (ATT, Sprint, US Cellular, T-Mobile, and Verizon) and compile the data.
- VectorLock 8y agoCell providers have information on what cell sites a mobile user has connected to and rough triangulations of the devices position. Google has the exact GPS coordinates sent by the device itself, WiFi networks around it, and other location data.
- baud147258 8y agoBut that's only if the GPS and wifi are activated on the phone. On my phone it's rarely the case.
- VectorLock 8y agoI'm sure if there is no data from Google they get it from the cell provides, or they _also_ get it from cell providers, but Google is definitely going to have much richer and detailed information on an individual -- if they have it turned on. I bet in 7/10 cases they do.
- baud147258 8y agoI don't disagree, I just wanted to point that Google might not have all info on all Android phones.
- scottlocklin 8y agoBecause google gets more detailed records than cellular operators. https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-google-may-be-tracking-every-move-you-make/ https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-googl...
- clort 8y ago"Most human beings can't interpret large strings of numbers and GPS coordinates without a map to illustrate them, and judges are no exception," said Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney for the national American Civil Liberties Union. One would hope though (clearly not, in this case) that a judge would be motivated to recognise when they were unable to interpret data like this that they were given, and request that it be provided in a clearer form that they could interpret. If judges do not do that routinely then perhaps they should be required to do so
- justjash 8y agoYou would hope, but I bet it rarely happens. I've only been in a courtroom once and hope to never have to deal with that again. Its a real let down seeing how decisions are made so quickly.
- renholder 8y ago>He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a look at who could be involved." ...because no case has ever been so righteously pursued, with such a vigorous degree of righteous indignation, that an innocent person was ever thrown in prison[0], yeah? This blasé attitude about sweeping-up data of innocent people is precisely how you arrive at it eventually being abused. The eroding of rights isn't a flagrantly giant leap but tiny concessions that occur until it's too late to reverse what has essentially become the modus operandi. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19186759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19186759
- coldtea 8y ago>He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a look at who could be involved." "Hmm, this black person was near..."
- coldtea 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_Carter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_Carter (others, too numerous to mention)
- MikeAmelung 8y agoThere are others, too numerous to mention, yet you used someone that was very likely guilty as your second example? Just wanted to bring this up in case anyone reads your comment and thoughtlessly nods in agreement.
- kfwhp 8y agoTake your race baiting and shove it.
- fixermark 8y agoIronic choice of examples, because lacking these tools, you've just identified the tool the police tend to fall back on. We can build algorithms to avoid racial bias, with awareness and effort. How confident are you we can train cops to do the same?
- maweki 8y agoIn Germany the "Funkzellenabfrage" ("reverse location" request by cell) provided by the providers is used quite often. On the last Chaos Communication Congress there was a talk about this and the police uses it quite frequently. The guesses were that on average every german phone is identified multiple times per year during this procedure. According to the Berlin statistics from 2017 there were nearly 450 requests resulting is 60 Million returned phones. Just compare that to Berlin's population...
- ekianjo 8y agoof all places you would Germany is the country the most aware of the dangers of broad surveillance powers. Strange that police gets such a blank check...
- VectorLock 8y agoDoes Germany not have judicial review of these kinds of police requests?
- maweki 8y agoAs far as I understand, every request has to be done with judicial approval, which is given every time since there's no mechanism to check for effectiveness after the fact and most judges have no clue how broad the request might be (and the police will certainly not dwell on that fact).
- VectorLock 8y agoSo the opposite of a blank check.
- Dylan16807 8y ago"Approved every time without knowing how big and having no review process." is exactly like a blank check. You seem to be implying that needing to go get blank checks with no meaningful questions asked makes something not a blank check. But that's exactly how checks work. They're pieces of paper after all. This situation is more like blank checks than if they had 24/7 access to the entire database.
- nraynaud 8y agoIn France that’s how the former president got busted, he used his burner phone from a sparsely populated area.
- baud147258 8y agoWhich president got busted for what?
- nraynaud 8y agoNicolas Sarkozy, for peddling influence. He was under investigation for getting money from Gaddafi when the police discovered he had another phone and was peddling influence with his lawyer as accomplice. He was trying to get informations on yet another enquiry against him by promising a judge he would use his influence to find him a higher job.
- hrdwdmrbl 8y agoIn the future I think that the idea that the government doesn't know where everyone is at all times will seem hard to imagine. (This is an IS statement not an OUGHT statement)
- netsharc 8y agoYeah, there's even already tech now to have drones constantly monitor cities: https://gizmodo.com/a-spy-plane-that-surveilled-an-entire-city-for-police-i-1823387513 https://gizmodo.com/a-spy-plane-that-surveilled-an-entire-ci... If you e.g. see a car speed off after a robbery, you'd just need to rewind to see where the car came from and who (or from which houses) it picked up before the robbery. I guess they'd just need to add cameras in underpasses for total surveillance.
- growlist 8y agoI'm actually kind of surprised that we don't all have permanent connected heart rate monitors already, in order that an ambulance can be called automatically should something happen.
- Ajedi32 8y agohttps://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/ https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/ > With the new accelerometer and gyroscope, Apple Watch Series 4 can detect that you’ve fallen. When an incident like this occurs, a hard fall alert is delivered, and you can easily initiate a call to emergency services or dismiss the alert. If you’re unresponsive after 60 seconds, the emergency call will be placed automatically and a message with your location will be sent to your emergency contacts.
- iceninenines 8y agoNote that most police in the US can locate any mobile number in real-time, usually within 100m, without a warrant.
- acd 8y agoThe interesting point would be if its repeat crime by the same person. Say that the same cell phone has been at several crime scenes during the crime period. The combined data set/cluster of cell phones present at the time during crime scenes would be interesting for the police.
- tyingq 8y agoOr maybe casing places/people for something they want to do later. You know...pre-crime.
- forgottenpass 8y ago>ordering Google to identify the locations of cellphones that had been near the crime scene in Eden Prairie So, is the court pretending that Google isn't conducting a search that involves every cell phone Google has ever known about, or are they saying that's "Google's database" particularly describes the place to be searched?
- zyxzevn 8y agoNext steps: Identify all cars near a crime scene.
- 908087 8y agoThanks to ALPR-laden vehicles constantly cruising around collecting this data for sleazy companies like Vigilant, this is probably already happening. This will be made even easier as more car manufacturers start installing GPS, wifi and 4G as standard features so they can double dip by collecting data on the people who pay them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car.
- the_pwner224 8y agoThis is already happening We have a 2018 Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4 (as well as previously a 2015 RAV4). Every time you start the Rogue, it flashes a message saying that "Vehicle Data Transmission is ON" (or "OFF"), and that certain features (live traffic updates, etc.) may not work if data transmission is off. It is clearly stated that data is transmitted to "Nissan and its business partners." And these days the trend is for devices to have non-owner-controllable software updates, so there's no guarantee that purchasing a car without this antifeature will keep you safe. With the Rogue you at least can (apparently) make a choice on keeping your privacy or selling out in exchange for a better navigation system (still kind of sad that this needs to be done after spending >$30k on it...), but with the Toyotas there's no choice... they have some "HD Radio" technology (not related to audio quality) which is used for traffic and weather data, and there's no way to find out or control what it sends.
- house_atr 8y agoMe: I don't want to activate this feature because it could be used against me by authorities Asshats: cOnSpIrAcY ur paranoid lol haha News: that feature is being used against you by authorities Rinse and repeat. Never gets old.
- Kenji 8y agoIs anyone surprised that your cellphone location is used in a criminal investigation? Silly people. Just a few years ago they caught a killer like this around here. They asked the cell phone providers for location data, pruned the group with what they knew about the killer and took a DNA test of the remainder of the suspects. Easy.
- turc1656 8y agoThis should surprise no one. I believe this has been known for a while now. This is one of the many reasons I have location services and GPS disabled on my Android and have all that tracking/history disabled in my Google account. GPS is only ever enabled precisely when I need it and only at those times (for navigation only). I also disable my wifi as well for the same reason - Google is able to track your location based on that, and they absolutely do so. I've seen it documented elsewhere. Only if you really need wifi enabled should you use it. Also, call me crazy but I'm pretty sure there is a legal requirement that mandates that warrants be very specific about who/what they apply to and what they expect to find in order to be justifiable.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoLaw enforcement will just go to the carriers who have your rough location data regardless of your GPS settings. They probably aren't keeping detailed tracklogs like Google today but I'm sure some fat government contracts can fix that.
- turc1656 8y agoYes, but that gives them tower connectivity only. Which is very, very general in terms of location unless you triangulate the location in real-time. And even then, you have to be connected to at least 3 towers at once for that to be accurate, which to my knowledge is not how phones operate. So they will only get the very rough location based on which tower you were connected to and when. In any modestly populated area that becomes effectively worthless in both practicality and the courtroom. In a city like NYC, that would literally result in a dragnet of tens of thousands for each of the major service providers. Even a bad attorney could get that thrown out immediately.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoI wouldn't trust that GPS is actually off for the baseband processor when you set it off. This is key for the real time location tracking by phone number.
- 8y ago
- slack3r 8y agoOf course, Palantir is behind this. Someone should really start putting checks on Silicon Valley executives, especially Peter Thiel.
- philipodonnell 8y ago> Bruley said detectives learned about the potential value of the practice and how to write the warrant applications at an August training seminar held by ZetX, an Arizona-based company that teaches police about cellphone investigations, and sells software called TRAX that generates legal documents and maps cellphone data to assist in analysis. The company holds trainings all across the country. > Material from the U.S. Department of Justice was presented, said Bruley, including suggested language for use in these types of warrants. I found this bit to be concerning as well. Create software that is more valuable with more warrants? "Train" officers on how to carefully write warrants to sneak them past overworked and less-technologically-sophisticated judges. Judicial deception as business development.
- titzer 8y agoCarrying a phone can make you a suspect. Not carrying a phone can make you a suspect. Conclusion: You are a suspect. I can't stand our culture's constant fear of people.
- freeflight 8y agoSadly it ain't even exclusive to the US [0] [0] https://youtu.be/pdIA0jeW-24 https://youtu.be/pdIA0jeW-24
- fixermark 8y agoThis feels like a method of catching criminals that criminals will rapidly adapt to avoiding. "Don't carry the thing that broadcasts your location at all times while you're committing a home invasion" seems like a pretty obvious thing to avoid once a threat model is understood. Regardless of the privacy issues, I don't anticipate this approach will stay useful in the long run.
- mirimir 8y agoIndeed. At least for professional criminals. So this approach will just ensnare random innocents, who happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Edit: Upon reflection, it's worse. Being aware of this approach, professional criminals could capture IMEIs in the target area for a while, write some SIMs, and carry some cloned phones during the operation. Then destroy all of those SIMs. So the police will target the people whose phones were cloned.
- anderspitman 8y agoOr better yet, pick pocket someone else's phone at another location. Commit a small but likely-to-be-reported crime near that location. Then carry their phone (and not yours) while committing a much more serious crime. They'll be tagged at both locations.
- fixermark 8y agoThat breaks down fast when the pickpocketing victim reports their phone stolen. Police have retrieved stolen phones via the pickpocketing victim running "find my phone" on their property when they realize it is gone.
- weej 8y ago>But by that point, police had already developed suspects without Google's help, based on vehicle descriptions and a confidential informant, they said in court filings. Even with a lack of probable cause and massive data surveillance, good old fashion police work is what mattered.
- flavioramos 8y agoGood to know Google could help find missing people (specially in disasters like missing planes and floods) but they just don't want to.
- Paul-ish 8y agoMy concern with this sort of search is it could evolve to be used in a pretextual manner on small crimes. "We have a reported flasher in this area, lets dump the cell phone record locations to find them. Oh looks, there are people with warrants that live in the area."
- aussieguy1234 8y agoSo the police have a list of 1000 people who were near a crime scene. Next step is to narrow it down - racial profiling, who has a criminal record... Young people are statistically more likely to commit violent crime, that's probably taken into account. It might be wise to turn off location if you belong to any minority group.