4 ms·

That data is absolutely vital in many criminal investigations to, eg., determine whether alibis are accurate. Many criminals have been caught in lies by taking

That data is absolutely vital in many criminal investigations to, eg., determine whether alibis are accurate. Many criminals have been caught in lies by taking calls that place them not-where-they-said-they-were. There's a please clear justification for holding that data and making it accessible via a warrant. What here needs reform is the warrant process, and more precisely, the incentive structures around policing. US DAs/Judges/Police/etc. need to be independent and impartial. At the moment excessive US electoral "democracy" creates pathological incentive structures.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
They did just fine before location data. They'll do just fine after location data. Especially with all the other digital breadcrumbs left around (security cameras and whatnot). If you don't think someone was somewhere they say they were there's a million other ways than phone data to check it out. Besides, it's not like "oh look his phone was elsewhere" ever stopped police from investigating someone. They just assume you left it at home or gave it to someone for the purposes of an alibi.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > They did just fine before location data. I hear this sort of argument a lot, and often use it myself, but... did they? Sure, law enforcement existed and solved cases before they had access to location data, but are there some (more recent) cases that would have been unsolvable without it? Or has police efficacy not increased at all because of access to location data? Do we have data on this? As much as I'm not positive on law enforcement in general, I think it's reasonable to have access to location data. But that access should be gated behind a limited-scope court order, and judges should not be rubber-stamping them. On the other hand, it seems like any capability granted to law enforcement ends up getting abused, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of just banning all location data use.
Sleepytime 6y ago
Most criminals know to use burner phones or at least turn off their phones, I'd be shocked if anything more than a token number of them were caught with this data. Meanwhile it can and does put innocent bystanders (often minorities) at risk of arrest or defamation for simply being in the area. >US DAs/Judges/Police/etc. need to be independent and impartial. This is like wishing hell had an air conditioner.
- pupdogg 6y ago
  Agreed! Also note that violent Criminals have absolutely 0% incentive to purchase firearms via legal means or actual background checks leading to denial. Their intent to commit harm is by any means possible and they WILL figure out a way.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Problem is history has shown that the mere existence of such information is too much of a temptation to resist. The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. The only way to combat this is for the information to not exist. Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. Invading everyone's privacy in the name of catching the small minority that engage in criminal activities is punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
- Sleepytime 6y ago
  >The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. One need to look no further than the widespread use of swat teams and no knock raids for mundane purposes, when even 50 years ago most cities didn't even have a swat team.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    That's use it or lose it budgeting for you. Kind of hard to justify the "APC maintenance" line item if the answer to "how much did you use that thing" is "never" so things like MRAPs and the swat team get used in situations they shouldn't be just to inflate their usefulness on paper.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    People wouldn't think the world is so much more dangerous than 50 years ago if we didn't use the SWAT so often. And if people didn't think the world is more dangerous, then those in power wouldn't be able to get away with nearly as much money.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. I think that's a fine ideal (that I agree with), but I don't think any reverence for it is shared by many in law enforcement or the legal profession in general. Conviction rates are king, and incentives are often not aligned with true justice.
apazzolini 6y ago
IANAL, but it seems to me that cell tower triangulation data proves a phone was at a given place at a given time but says nothing about who was in possession of the phone.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Correct, but if I tell police I took a call from you while relaxing at home, and it turns out I did take the call, but was actually at the crime scene, then my alibi falls apart. Note this is not an endorsement of the grandparent's policy view, just an explanation of how it can be applied.
ska 6y ago
> There's a please clear justification for holding that data and making it accessible via a warrant. That's not a justification, that's an argument. A justification would involved evidence-based analysis of why the potential benefits (that you point out) outweigh the potential risks (abuse of process, targeting, etc.). Given the current state of affairs (as you point out) it's not clear at all that the benefits win.
kelnos 6y ago
That's what legal holds are for. I agree that a week is probably too short, but 3-5 years seems way too long. Six months, maybe? And a law enforcement agency can apply for a court order to put a hold on deleting data for specific people (a request that would require less scrutiny than requesting access to the data itself).
anigbrowl 6y ago
That data is absolutely vital in many criminal investigations What you're arguing for here is to holding data on everyone for several years on the grounds that you might commit a crime in the future or be planning to commit a crime now. I'm OK with this for someone who has aroused sufficient suspicion to justify surveillance, but your approach makes mass surveillance the default condition.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

They did just fine before location data. They'll do just fine after location data. Especially with all the other digital breadcrumbs left around (security cameras and whatnot). If you don't think someone was somewhere they say they were there's a million other ways than phone data to check it out. Besides, it's not like "oh look his phone was elsewhere" ever stopped police from investigating someone. They just assume you left it at home or gave it to someone for the purposes of an alibi.

kelnos 6y ago
> They did just fine before location data. I hear this sort of argument a lot, and often use it myself, but... did they? Sure, law enforcement existed and solved cases before they had access to location data, but are there some (more recent) cases that would have been unsolvable without it? Or has police efficacy not increased at all because of access to location data? Do we have data on this? As much as I'm not positive on law enforcement in general, I think it's reasonable to have access to location data. But that access should be gated behind a limited-scope court order, and judges should not be rubber-stamping them. On the other hand, it seems like any capability granted to law enforcement ends up getting abused, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of just banning all location data use.

Sleepytime 6y ago

Most criminals know to use burner phones or at least turn off their phones, I'd be shocked if anything more than a token number of them were caught with this data. Meanwhile it can and does put innocent bystanders (often minorities) at risk of arrest or defamation for simply being in the area. >US DAs/Judges/Police/etc. need to be independent and impartial. This is like wishing hell had an air conditioner.

pupdogg 6y ago
Agreed! Also note that violent Criminals have absolutely 0% incentive to purchase firearms via legal means or actual background checks leading to denial. Their intent to commit harm is by any means possible and they WILL figure out a way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

Problem is history has shown that the mere existence of such information is too much of a temptation to resist. The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. The only way to combat this is for the information to not exist. Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. Invading everyone's privacy in the name of catching the small minority that engage in criminal activities is punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

Sleepytime 6y ago
>The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. One need to look no further than the widespread use of swat teams and no knock raids for mundane purposes, when even 50 years ago most cities didn't even have a swat team.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  That's use it or lose it budgeting for you. Kind of hard to justify the "APC maintenance" line item if the answer to "how much did you use that thing" is "never" so things like MRAPs and the swat team get used in situations they shouldn't be just to inflate their usefulness on paper.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  People wouldn't think the world is so much more dangerous than 50 years ago if we didn't use the SWAT so often. And if people didn't think the world is more dangerous, then those in power wouldn't be able to get away with nearly as much money.
kelnos 6y ago
> Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. I think that's a fine ideal (that I agree with), but I don't think any reverence for it is shared by many in law enforcement or the legal profession in general. Conviction rates are king, and incentives are often not aligned with true justice.

apazzolini 6y ago

IANAL, but it seems to me that cell tower triangulation data proves a phone was at a given place at a given time but says nothing about who was in possession of the phone.

anigbrowl 6y ago
Correct, but if I tell police I took a call from you while relaxing at home, and it turns out I did take the call, but was actually at the crime scene, then my alibi falls apart. Note this is not an endorsement of the grandparent's policy view, just an explanation of how it can be applied.

ska 6y ago

> There's a please clear justification for holding that data and making it accessible via a warrant. That's not a justification, that's an argument. A justification would involved evidence-based analysis of why the potential benefits (that you point out) outweigh the potential risks (abuse of process, targeting, etc.). Given the current state of affairs (as you point out) it's not clear at all that the benefits win.

kelnos 6y ago

That's what legal holds are for. I agree that a week is probably too short, but 3-5 years seems way too long. Six months, maybe? And a law enforcement agency can apply for a court order to put a hold on deleting data for specific people (a request that would require less scrutiny than requesting access to the data itself).

anigbrowl 6y ago

That data is absolutely vital in many criminal investigations What you're arguing for here is to holding data on everyone for several years on the grounds that you might commit a crime in the future or be planning to commit a crime now. I'm OK with this for someone who has aroused sufficient suspicion to justify surveillance, but your approach makes mass surveillance the default condition.