5 ms·
I've let Google track my location history for over 10 years now. On top of being incredibly useful (and fun) to remember where I was and when, I always imagined
by extr 3y ago
I've let Google track my location history for over 10 years now. On top of being incredibly useful (and fun) to remember where I was and when, I always imagined it would come in handy as an alibi if I was ever accused of a crime.
- snvzz 3y agoIt'd get thrown out as an alibi. But it'd be used as evidence for a crime. That's how it works with data: Against you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jjoonathan 3y agoThat sounds rigged.
- nxm 3y agoEvidence of this?
- ffpip 3y agohttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike...
- extr 3y agoWhy would it get thrown out?
- sambazi 3y agocircumstantial
- tzs 3y agoSo? Much of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. For example fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, which for the most part means testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the crime. Evidence that requires making inferences to get from the evidence to the crime is circumstantial. A good non-criminal example of direct vs. circumstantial evidence would be if you were trying to prove that it snowed last night and you found someone who said that they woke up at 3 AM and looked out a window and saw it snowing. That would direct evidence because you have someone who claims to have personal knowledge that what you are trying to prove happened actually happened. If instead of a witness who actually saw the snowfall you had a person who testified that there was no snow on the ground when they went to bed but when they woke up in the morning there was snow that would be circumstantial evidence. From that testimony you do have direct evidence that there was snow on the ground in the morning, but you have to make inferences if you are trying to prove that snow fell during the night and so that evidence is circumstantial for proving that.
- bmicraft 3y agoCould've handed the phone to someone else
- lhnz 3y agoThe evidence would have to be looked at in regards to the totality of the evidence. They couldn't just say you handed the phone to somebody else without knowing this and showing evidence that this was the case. Assertions without evidence are generally not persuasive, and in criminal cases they must prove that you committed the crime beyond "reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period.
- Retric 3y agoIn practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” Risking a bench trial is poor odds as they are significantly more likely to convict when things aren’t clear. Roughly 3/4 the time they agree, but when they disagree judges are ~5x more likely to convict. The difference seems to largely be bias on the side of Judges.
- lhnz 3y agoWhile the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.
- Retric 3y agoIt’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
- lhnz 3y agoThis isn't true. Contemporaneous evidence may often be admissable in court, subject to other legal tests and challenges regarding its relevance, reliability and integrity. Any evidence that you have that can corroborate your story will be useful to you, hence digital trails are defensive tools to innocent people, even though appearing on CCTV or near a crime could be sufficient for further investigation including questioning, detainment, or other forms of inquiry.
- HPsquared 3y agoAlso why Nixon recorded all his conversations.
- more_corn 3y agoThat’s not how any of this works. An alibi shows the investigators that you aren’t a suspect. It happens before anything goes to trial. I’m not in favor of location data collection, but once it is collected it can be an easy way to show you weren’t involved.
- hilbert42 3y ago"I always imagined it would come in handy as an alibi if I was ever accused of a crime." Yeah, right. But not if you're in the zone swept up for questioning. See my comment.
- extr 3y agoDon't mind if I get swept up. Happy to help the police catch potential criminals.
- freilanzer 3y agoThat's very naive.
- nuancebydefault 3y agoHow is working with the police naive?
- brokenmachine 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- freilanzer 3y agoThis is exactly what I meant, thanks.
- bt4u 3y ago[dead]
- DrScientist 3y agoIt's not unheard of confused old ladies insisting it's you in the line up, even though you volunteered to be part of the line up to help out the police. Then the police start questioning you and it turns out you don't happen to have a supportable alibi. The reason you were chosen for the lineup is you looked a bit like the suspect they were really originally testing. Same goes for geolocation sweeps - you already fit part of the profile - you were there - by definition your data doesn't help you. Add that to some other circumstantial thing and the police start wondering if they got lucky.
- account-5 3y agoUnless you commited the crime...
- ipaddr 3y agoOr happen to be in an area where a crime occurs
- maigret 3y agoOr happen to know a criminal without knowing
- Maxion 3y agoOr, you know, the criminal committing the crime without a phone, and OP walking past the wrong place and the wrong time. A lazy police officer making a geofenced information request to Google and getting only one result...
- bagels 3y agoMy favorite: guy's phone is stolen and left at a murder scene
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoas I plotted the perfect murder I noticed that extr often walked past my victim's house at 9 at night on a relaxing evening stroll listening to music on their iphone. I decided to give the police a lead to good too pass up! on edit: had edited seconds after post to change to to too, and mixed up the order of to and too, this edit fixes that mixup.
- hilbert42 3y agoIts a shame Agatha Christie isn't still alive today. No doubt, she'd have thought up some marvelous plots involving smartphones and I dare say the internet and cyber crime. :-)
- isodev 3y agoExcept when... imagine you were helping a friend do something perfectly normal but temporarily considered as a crime... the downsides are just too great to ignore.
- farseer 3y agoYou left your phone somewhere else to hide your tracks.
- iepathos 3y agoGoogle phone location doesn't work as an alibi in court, you'd need people to verify your location. In court, it only proves your phone was there not that you were so it's thrown out as an alibi. For police, they use it to generate leads for investigation not as evidence in court to prove someone they charged was at a location.
- lhnz 3y agoEven if the phone was completely stationary and you made no recorded interactions/transactions at all with it, it wouldn't get "thrown out as an alibi". This evidence would get considered with regards to other corroborating evidence that you provide. Obviously, if you picked up the phone and chatted to your wife, or used it to buy something at the local store, it validates your location data even further.
- tiahura 3y ago[flagged]
- everdrive 3y agoUnless you happened to be physically located near a crime, in which case your location data could be falsely used to accuse you. And you'd better hope there aren't other circumstantial bits of evidence which makes it look like you're actually guilty.
- mbrumlow 3y agoYes. But it can also prove you were near a crime you did not commit and thus used as evidence you did commit it. The problem is you don’t have control over the data. Example. Somebody was killed in a hit and run. PD says “give me all the people where in this location at this tome in a car”. Your name is the only one that shows up. You just became the top suspect. And and after the investigation a homeless guy who was given a hot meal in return for looking at some photos indicates he saw you do the hit and run. Good job. Your data locked you up in jail for 10 years. Hope Google is logging how many times you dropped the soap.
- nuancebydefault 3y agoWell argumented! However, consider that any evidence, google data or not, has the problem that it might be held against an innocent. Any evidence has to be considered with caution. Basing a conviction on, let's say location only, is not passing the reasonable doubt test. The problem I see is when the justice system would become 'lazy' and would not look beyond automatically collected data. The non-auto-collected evidence is harder to get, hence the result (from a total set of evidences) could get heavily biased.
- rasz 3y agoVery useful to person purchasing your location data and framing you for murder.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoPerhaps you might have to prove it was you who was carrying the phone at the date(s) and time(s) in question. Obviously if Google or its subsidiaries are your adversaries, then you might not get the data you need from the source. For example if the company or its subsidiaries are negatively affected by the alleged crime, or they just don't like you for any reason, they might even be the ones who report it. Why not let your government track your location history for a decade. That way, it will know that you did not commit any crimes. That is how silly this sounds to me. By law and by agreement, Google is actually less accountable to you than your government (assuming you are American).