12 ms·
Fog Revealed: A guided tour of how cops can browse your location data
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nmeagent 4y agoRelated discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32685046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32685046
- pvg 4y agoAnd yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686750
- murphyslab 4y agoI haven't seen this covered in mainstream TV news, save for a segment earlier this week on PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-an-obscure-cellphone-tracking-tool-provides-police-mass-surveillance-on-a-budget https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-an-obscure-cellpho... Rather sad that it isn't more widely discussed.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIsn't it obvious why? Everybody uses cops as a punching bag but they are merely buying information that 3rd parties are willing to sell. The 3rd parties have deep pockets. How do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? I'm not sure how. Nobody wants to give up their phones.
- redeux 4y agoIt requires a legislative solution and increasing the issue’s visibility seems like a reasonable way to create negative public sentiment and apply pressure to legislatures.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoYes but every article points fingers at cops- the wrong target. The right target are the data brokers. How would you possibly tell cops they cannot use information that others can freely purchase?
- redeux 4y agoI felt like it was using police to highlight the dangers of data brokers, rather than pointing the finger at police. Either way it seems like we agree that the problem here isn’t that the police are using a tool that aggregates 3rd-party data, but rather that the data is allowed to be aggregated and sold to begin with.
- humanistbot 4y agoLocal procurement ordinances. A city council can pass an ordinance that does not allow any part of the city's budget to be spent on data from data brokers or really any technology -- drones, facial recognition, whatever. This academic paper looks at efforts in Oakland, Seattle, and San Diego [1] [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006
- darawk 4y agoSure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.
- humanistbot 4y agoWhy? Private citizens don't have the ability to put you in an interrogation room against your will, and aren't in the business of being professional investigators. I get the argument that the best long-term solution would be regulating the data brokers. But if you want to do something right now that will actually restrict the police in your neighborhoods from using this as part of their jobs, this is a way to do that.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoPolice don't need warrants when given consent. Police can search your house without a warrant if you tell them that they can. Police can buy information from data brokers. Warrants compel compliance
- HarryHirsch 4y agoMaybe they should need warrants even with consent. The drug dog spiel has gotten far too old to be tolerable.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoIf you swim in the "don't talk to police" ocean, you discover versions of the comic dialog (well, it isn't really funny) when the cops have you in the interrogation room "with your consent": You: Am I under arrest? Cops: We just want to ask you a few questions so you can help us out. You are not a suspect. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: We just want to clear up a few things. You are not under arrest. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: Before you go, we want to ask a couple things. You: So I'm free to go? etc.
- wmf 4y agoHow do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? GDPR USA edition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- encryptluks2 4y agoYou'd think after a few cops got caught abusing these systems to spy or harass victims or former partners that they would be banned from doing anything without a warrant.
- Lukineus 4y agoThe issue here (IMO) is that they aren't using "police powers" to get this information. They're just buying it like any other corporate entity.
- encryptluks2 4y agoUnless they are paying for it with their own personal money, then I don't see how it couldn't be considered police powers if they are using it in an investigation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SturgeonsLaw 4y agoIf police killing people hasn't triggered reform then it's hard to believe that abuse of a location database will do it. Although if the victim was someone rich and powerful, then that might change. Still, the cops know to pick their battles to avoid angering someone that can fight back. https://reason.com/2022/04/08/the-fbi-decided-not-to-knock-down-a-suspects-front-door-because-it-was-an-affluent-neighborhood/ https://reason.com/2022/04/08/the-fbi-decided-not-to-knock-d...
- mod 4y agoIf (some) cops aren't using this to track their partners/children/enemies, I'd be extremely surprised. You can drill it down to an individual target easily if you know one place they often are.
- sylware 4y agoIn my country, got rumors about the currently in power political party using such tools to find dirt on other political parties.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThe problem is that they haven't realized there are actually two markets: one where the police can pay for customer data and another market where users can pay to have their data made inaccessible to police. Then it becomes a bidding war between LEO and the public. It's a great way to do price discovery on sensitive information which is presently subject to inefficient market solutions all while collecting a tidy profit on the side.
- para_parolu 4y agoPolice also pay with user’s money
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThank you for the excellent segue as to why the police's monopoly on violence is a market failure that can be addressed by reinvisioning the gig economy.
- Teever 4y agoYou're missing a third and far more chilling option -- that the people can pay for data on the police. If we must exist in a world with no secrets then there must be no secrets.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThe police can simply pay to have this data made private. That is, if business wishes to capitalize and create a market for it.
- Teever 4y agoIt won't matter. We're quickly coming to a time when police brutality will be solved by crowd-sourced drone hits on brutalizing officers.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
- mod 4y agoIn the links, I found a guide to disable the AD ID that this tech uses to track you, on Android. I wonder what would happen if maybe an app or something allowed us to poison their data set. In theory, if my unique ID pinged in my home state and another state in the same hour, the data becomes a lot less useful.
- WaxProlix 4y agoYou should totally link that link here! I'd love to create a chaos-as-a-service for this, $2/mo and we'll throw random legit-looking patterns in different places using your AD ID.
- mod 4y agosettings -> privacy -> ads Turn off the advertising ID.
- landemva 4y agoAdv ID + a GPS track to pollute the data sets while you sleep and your phone virtually travels around.
- _8j50 4y agoThe thing is criminals know this which means leave their phone powered off at home when doing anything remotley criminal or associating with others in the game. Where as with warrant tapping they could just avoid being on the cops' radar. Cops are using this to find bad guys not to investigate them. Which makes their job of catching career and methodical criminals harder but it does make it easier to catch most opportunistic and accidental criminals as well as many victimless crime suspects
- pnw 4y agoGreat article and amazing work by EFF reconstructing the interface. I’m reasonably familiar with how mobile ad networks function. Am I correct in assuming that current iOS devices wouldn’t be subject to this because Apple has restricted access to a cross app identifier? Or is Fog/Ventel relying just on Waze data? Also, if you use pi-hole at home, wouldn’t that make the analysis much more difficult?
- midislack 4y agoDon’t like this? Chuck your phone. Because there is a 0% chance the government will fix this problem.