10 ms·

‘Locate X’ allows federal law enforcement to track phones without warrants

154 points by spking 7y ago

eth0up 7y ago
A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017): https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the-powerful-social-media-surveillance-used-by-police-secret-service-and-sports-stadiums https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-company-online-surveillance-leads-to-profit-in-washingtons-suburbs/2017/09/08/6067c924-9409-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-com... Babel Street's first customer was the Pentagon, according to TWP. It appears to have since spread with virulence to nearly all branches of government. I wonder how viable they'd be (in cellphone location tracking) if permissions actually meant something in Android. I missed any mention of iphones in the Protocol article, but would default to equal cynicism.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that. Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them, which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will so become.
  - eth0up 7y ago
    I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X. Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor. Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.
saagarjha 7y ago
> Locate X must be "used for internal research purposes only," according to terms of use distributed to agencies, and law enforcement authorities are forbidden from using the technology as evidence — or mentioning it at all — in legal proceedings. So it's obviously useless to law enforcement, right? Since parallel construction and evidence laundering are illegal and not something that they would engage in…
- eth0up 7y ago
  The Bechtel of parallel construction.
  - m463 7y ago
    "I'm a construction worker" More seriously, I think real criminals will just leave their phone at home.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Criminals are unlikely to be better with computers than the general population. The general population is worse than most people on this site realise: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/
      - Phemist 7y ago
        There is strong selective pressure on criminals to become good at computers though, more so than the general population.
        sky_rw 7y ago
        For some perhaps, but crime is hard work and criminals are lazy almost by definition.
        Agenttin 7y ago
danmur 7y ago
Pretty unpleasant seeing the term open source applied like this.
- sneak 7y ago
  This is why, despite the Stallman-type connotations, I have started exclusively using the term “free software” to call what I used to refer to as “open source”. Lesser reason: Lots of software is source-available, but isn’t free-as-in-freedom in my view (including the AGPL!) and distinguishing that is very important for anyone involved in a business that uses software. The last thing an entrepreneur (who already deals with tons of existential risks) needs is an additional risk uncertainty. Free software is (in most cases, Oracle’s fuckery excepted) a bright line there. (Sorry for veering off of the direct topic of TFA.)
  - dTal 7y ago
    Ironic that you say "despite the Stallman-type connotations" when that's exactly why Stallman advocates the term. For guy who's right all the time he really gets some unfair press.
    - sneak 7y ago
      Nobody is "right all the time", least of all Richard Stallman. He's a creepy asshole who doesn't respect boundaries.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  This is the original meaning of the term ‘open source’, long before software. The software people shouldn’t have tried to repurpose an existing term. This is why they couldn't trademark it!
- hvdijk 7y ago
  One of the requirements for Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition is that you can use it for any purpose: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". It makes sense to interpret "open-source data" the same way. The problem here as I see it is not the way the term "open-source" is used, it's that there should be legal safeguards preventing personal information of others from being shared as "open-source data" without their consent.
Tepix 7y ago
These law enforcement people are going against judges orders (i.e. the warrant requirement). The people in charge should lose their jobs.
AdmiralGinge 7y ago
I'm amazed any self-respecting criminal would carry a smartphone (or arguably even a dumb phone) while committing a crime. You might as well spray-paint "I'm a criminal, come and arrest me at [address]" on a bedsheet and hang it off a motorway bridge.
- ganzuul 7y ago
  It's not criminals who need to be worried about this tech.
  - djeuegeue73 7y ago
    Citation needed.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      History books supply ample citations and experience. Authorities need a regular check. This fact was established in all modern democracies. That these checks don't work for modern technology is because of lacking competency from people responsible. And the fact too many people trying to publish wrongdoing end up in solitary confinement or need to flee the country.
      - westmeal 7y ago
        Case in point: Julian Assange and Snowden
- buckminster 7y ago
  Plenty of criminals post their exploits on social media. And the police in the UK complain about it. The retardation on all sides is deep and pervasive.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Because bragging online about doing something is not really a confession? Probably not enough to get a warrant for phone tracking data?
Shivetya 7y ago
The US use of it isn't the concern, we can regulate it and I do not see a reason for many agencies to have the tool or its like. What people should understand is once this tool exists then oppressive governments can either get hold of it and create their own. So go pick your favorite country known for oppressing people and you can guarantee this or similar is in use. So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which apps have sent data and how much. Kind of like how tracking is being defeated on the desktop. Pretty much the end run is burner phones/prepaid but any organized individual or group of who does not want to be tracked would or should already have gone down that route. Of course that only works to a point, where a large number of them congregate can provide agencies a lot of information as well.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  > We can regulate it Oh yes, you've been very successful in regulating the US government not to spy on people without warrants. You might want to read Snowden's book about the extent of this great success.
- Accujack 7y ago
  >So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which apps have sent data and how much. This is the part of what you said that I agree with. Personal devices such as phones are far too much under the control of their manufacturers and not the owners of the devices.
einpoklum 7y ago
In Soviet Russia, government tell phone network operator to spy on you. In Capitalist America, phone network operator spy on you to tell government.
greendestiny_re 7y ago
I've started using my smartphone as a landline receiver. I keep it plugged into the same power outlet all the time, check the messages and answer them through the PC if possible. We've come full circle.

154 points by spking 7y ago

A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017): https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the-powerful-social-media-surveillance-used-by-police-secret-service-and-sports-stadiums https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-company-online-surveillance-leads-to-profit-in-washingtons-suburbs/2017/09/08/6067c924-9409-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-com... Babel Street's first customer was the Pentagon, according to TWP. It appears to have since spread with virulence to nearly all branches of government. I wonder how viable they'd be (in cellphone location tracking) if permissions actually meant something in Android. I missed any mention of iphones in the Protocol article, but would default to equal cynicism.

cryptonector 7y ago
Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that. Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them, which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will so become.
- eth0up 7y ago
  I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X. Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor. Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.

saagarjha 7y ago

> Locate X must be "used for internal research purposes only," according to terms of use distributed to agencies, and law enforcement authorities are forbidden from using the technology as evidence — or mentioning it at all — in legal proceedings. So it's obviously useless to law enforcement, right? Since parallel construction and evidence laundering are illegal and not something that they would engage in…

eth0up 7y ago
The Bechtel of parallel construction.
- m463 7y ago
  "I'm a construction worker" More seriously, I think real criminals will just leave their phone at home.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Criminals are unlikely to be better with computers than the general population. The general population is worse than most people on this site realise: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/
    - Phemist 7y ago
      There is strong selective pressure on criminals to become good at computers though, more so than the general population.
      - sky_rw 7y ago
        For some perhaps, but crime is hard work and criminals are lazy almost by definition.
        Agenttin 7y ago

danmur 7y ago

Pretty unpleasant seeing the term open source applied like this.

sneak 7y ago
This is why, despite the Stallman-type connotations, I have started exclusively using the term “free software” to call what I used to refer to as “open source”. Lesser reason: Lots of software is source-available, but isn’t free-as-in-freedom in my view (including the AGPL!) and distinguishing that is very important for anyone involved in a business that uses software. The last thing an entrepreneur (who already deals with tons of existential risks) needs is an additional risk uncertainty. Free software is (in most cases, Oracle’s fuckery excepted) a bright line there. (Sorry for veering off of the direct topic of TFA.)
- dTal 7y ago
  Ironic that you say "despite the Stallman-type connotations" when that's exactly why Stallman advocates the term. For guy who's right all the time he really gets some unfair press.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Nobody is "right all the time", least of all Richard Stallman. He's a creepy asshole who doesn't respect boundaries.
chrisseaton 7y ago
This is the original meaning of the term ‘open source’, long before software. The software people shouldn’t have tried to repurpose an existing term. This is why they couldn't trademark it!
hvdijk 7y ago
One of the requirements for Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition is that you can use it for any purpose: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". It makes sense to interpret "open-source data" the same way. The problem here as I see it is not the way the term "open-source" is used, it's that there should be legal safeguards preventing personal information of others from being shared as "open-source data" without their consent.

Tepix 7y ago

These law enforcement people are going against judges orders (i.e. the warrant requirement). The people in charge should lose their jobs.

AdmiralGinge 7y ago

I'm amazed any self-respecting criminal would carry a smartphone (or arguably even a dumb phone) while committing a crime. You might as well spray-paint "I'm a criminal, come and arrest me at [address]" on a bedsheet and hang it off a motorway bridge.

ganzuul 7y ago
It's not criminals who need to be worried about this tech.
- djeuegeue73 7y ago
  Citation needed.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    History books supply ample citations and experience. Authorities need a regular check. This fact was established in all modern democracies. That these checks don't work for modern technology is because of lacking competency from people responsible. And the fact too many people trying to publish wrongdoing end up in solitary confinement or need to flee the country.
    - westmeal 7y ago
      Case in point: Julian Assange and Snowden
buckminster 7y ago
Plenty of criminals post their exploits on social media. And the police in the UK complain about it. The retardation on all sides is deep and pervasive.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Because bragging online about doing something is not really a confession? Probably not enough to get a warrant for phone tracking data?

Shivetya 7y ago

The US use of it isn't the concern, we can regulate it and I do not see a reason for many agencies to have the tool or its like. What people should understand is once this tool exists then oppressive governments can either get hold of it and create their own. So go pick your favorite country known for oppressing people and you can guarantee this or similar is in use. So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which apps have sent data and how much. Kind of like how tracking is being defeated on the desktop. Pretty much the end run is burner phones/prepaid but any organized individual or group of who does not want to be tracked would or should already have gone down that route. Of course that only works to a point, where a large number of them congregate can provide agencies a lot of information as well.

einpoklum 7y ago
> We can regulate it Oh yes, you've been very successful in regulating the US government not to spy on people without warrants. You might want to read Snowden's book about the extent of this great success.
Accujack 7y ago
>So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which apps have sent data and how much. This is the part of what you said that I agree with. Personal devices such as phones are far too much under the control of their manufacturers and not the owners of the devices.

einpoklum 7y ago

In Soviet Russia, government tell phone network operator to spy on you. In Capitalist America, phone network operator spy on you to tell government.

greendestiny_re 7y ago

I've started using my smartphone as a landline receiver. I keep it plugged into the same power outlet all the time, check the messages and answer them through the PC if possible. We've come full circle.