5 ms·

doubtful. they were issuing subpoenas to the cell companies for their records of the tower registrations for a certain time frame when crimes were being committ

doubtful. they were issuing subpoenas to the cell companies for their records of the tower registrations for a certain time frame when crimes were being committed. It doesn't take much to identify the owner of a smartphone via that and then correlate that with driver's license photo ids and correlate that with surveillance camera footage to bring a case. that had nothing to do with peaceful protester tracking but bog standard criminal investigation.

roarcher 3y ago
I posted the source in another comment but I'll put it here as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-is-mapping-cell-phone-location-data-from-capitol-rioters-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-is-mapping-cell-phone-lo... The data came from Google and included GPS data. Either way, I don't think that matters. My point is that tech companies store data that can be used to identify everyone present at a specific location and timeframe, and that data is easily available to the government. There's no "may" about it.
- weaksauce 3y ago
  sure... I don't disagree with you there. they did need to get a subpoena for that information using all the other evidence that was publicly out there on facebook that the affidavit said. they were using an android device that tracks you if you let it and stores that information on google's servers if you let it. you don't have to have that feature on and just having the phone on you is sufficient to be triangulated by the cell towers. I don't see how this is incompatible with modern society. google didn't just give up the data without going through the judge granting a subpoena. even if they didn't have that cell phone record it's just one piece of evidence of many that would still likely get a conviction. it didn't start at gps data from google... it went from public posts on facebook to the email and phone number account associated with that to the google account associated with that to the gps data associated with the google account. if you show me them using a reach around route to get that gps data and persecute peaceful protestors that haven't been suspected of criminal activity then i do agree it's troubling. if you want me to agree that the government is not within their rights seek evidence via normal, judge approved, subpoenas to investigate/prosecute people storming the capital and doing legitimate crimes then i disagree. you need probable cause and that bar should be fairly high.
  - roarcher 3y ago
    In the J6 case they used a subpoena, yes. The OP article says that they're now going around the legal process by simply buying the data. But my point is that the article implies that there's some uncertainty as to whether this data can be used to identify everyone present at a place and time, and there isn't. It has been done before.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  That's missing the point. Your article says > investigators obtained GPS and other cell phone records from Google via a search warrant Search warrants are and remain the correct tool for the government to get this data. What this article is worrying about is the fact that sometimes the government simply purchases this data without any sign off from a judge. That's where constitutional protections are eroded. Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant.
  - roarcher 3y ago
    I'm aware of the distinction. I guess I wasn't clear in my original comment because this keeps coming up: My point is merely that there is absolutely no doubt that once acquired, the data gives the government this capability. The article implies that this is uncertain, and it is not. > Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant. Whatever outrage you read into my comments, I assure you it's not there. If you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere. Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that. So if I was outraged, it would be well placed, according to you.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      > Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that. The OP article doesn't match the document it describes, which says that the government authorized 5 searches of this data in the past 2.5 years.
      - roarcher 3y ago
        Are you sure about that? See Section 2.2 of the report, "Examples of CAI Contracts" that says "The IC currently acquires a large amount of CAI" and goes on to list specific data brokers contracted by specific government agencies. What am I missing?
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
autoexec 3y ago
They used a bunch of different tricks to ID some of the people there (and they've still not arrested most of them). The lesson here isn't that they aren't collecting data effectively, or that they aren't able to learn whatever they want, but rather that the data isn't really intended or used for protecting America from attacks or threats or terrorism. It's certainly being used, but not to protect us.
thumbuddy 3y ago
The irony is they could have just bought the cellphone data. That's literally for sale. Maybe there was some legal reason they couldn't use it directly but it's already out there.

roarcher 3y ago

I posted the source in another comment but I'll put it here as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-is-mapping-cell-phone-location-data-from-capitol-rioters-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-is-mapping-cell-phone-lo... The data came from Google and included GPS data. Either way, I don't think that matters. My point is that tech companies store data that can be used to identify everyone present at a specific location and timeframe, and that data is easily available to the government. There's no "may" about it.

weaksauce 3y ago
sure... I don't disagree with you there. they did need to get a subpoena for that information using all the other evidence that was publicly out there on facebook that the affidavit said. they were using an android device that tracks you if you let it and stores that information on google's servers if you let it. you don't have to have that feature on and just having the phone on you is sufficient to be triangulated by the cell towers. I don't see how this is incompatible with modern society. google didn't just give up the data without going through the judge granting a subpoena. even if they didn't have that cell phone record it's just one piece of evidence of many that would still likely get a conviction. it didn't start at gps data from google... it went from public posts on facebook to the email and phone number account associated with that to the google account associated with that to the gps data associated with the google account. if you show me them using a reach around route to get that gps data and persecute peaceful protestors that haven't been suspected of criminal activity then i do agree it's troubling. if you want me to agree that the government is not within their rights seek evidence via normal, judge approved, subpoenas to investigate/prosecute people storming the capital and doing legitimate crimes then i disagree. you need probable cause and that bar should be fairly high.
- roarcher 3y ago
  In the J6 case they used a subpoena, yes. The OP article says that they're now going around the legal process by simply buying the data. But my point is that the article implies that there's some uncertainty as to whether this data can be used to identify everyone present at a place and time, and there isn't. It has been done before.
kccqzy 3y ago
That's missing the point. Your article says > investigators obtained GPS and other cell phone records from Google via a search warrant Search warrants are and remain the correct tool for the government to get this data. What this article is worrying about is the fact that sometimes the government simply purchases this data without any sign off from a judge. That's where constitutional protections are eroded. Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant.
- roarcher 3y ago
  I'm aware of the distinction. I guess I wasn't clear in my original comment because this keeps coming up: My point is merely that there is absolutely no doubt that once acquired, the data gives the government this capability. The article implies that this is uncertain, and it is not. > Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant. Whatever outrage you read into my comments, I assure you it's not there. If you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere. Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that. So if I was outraged, it would be well placed, according to you.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that. The OP article doesn't match the document it describes, which says that the government authorized 5 searches of this data in the past 2.5 years.
    - roarcher 3y ago
      Are you sure about that? See Section 2.2 of the report, "Examples of CAI Contracts" that says "The IC currently acquires a large amount of CAI" and goes on to list specific data brokers contracted by specific government agencies. What am I missing?
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago

They used a bunch of different tricks to ID some of the people there (and they've still not arrested most of them). The lesson here isn't that they aren't collecting data effectively, or that they aren't able to learn whatever they want, but rather that the data isn't really intended or used for protecting America from attacks or threats or terrorism. It's certainly being used, but not to protect us.

thumbuddy 3y ago

The irony is they could have just bought the cellphone data. That's literally for sale. Maybe there was some legal reason they couldn't use it directly but it's already out there.