5 ms·

Or it could exonerate you

• AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  If your phone shows up at the scene of a crime, even if you weren't the perpetrator, they use it against you. If your phone shows it wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime, they claim it's irrelevant because you knew you were going to commit a crime and left your phone somewhere else.
  • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be interesting enough to be questioned in the first place. Unless the police have reason to suspect specific people then casting drag nets (phone location data, ALPR data, etc) and then sifting through the list of people they get for the most probable suspects is SOP.
    • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be interesting enough to be questioned in the first place. The same result obtains when your phone isn't leaking your location data to anyone.
      • chrisseaton 5y ago
        That's the absence of a positive - the person you're replying to is suggesting the presence of a negative. See the difference?
        • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
          The distinction only matters if it has practical effect. Having no data causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. Having data that says your phone wasn't there causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. It's the same result. It's only when your phone is informing on you that you get into trouble, because then when you're unlucky to have been in the vicinity of a crime, you then become interesting and have a bad time even when you're completely innocent.
• x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Exculpatory data doesn't go far in the US, and why on earth would we want to encourage a system based on "Keep your location tracking on so the police can NOT prosecute you for crimes".
• josefx 5y ago
  If that was possible criminals would just leave their google trackers with a friend, instant alibi.