5 ms·

They are a very effective tool for finding burglars. That's how many burglaries are solved in my area. If the exact time of the burglary is known (from alarm o

They are a very effective tool for finding burglars. That's how many burglaries are solved in my area. If the exact time of the burglary is known (from alarm or security camera) a very specific warrant is given for all phone activity at or near that time at that location. I'm hoping if the warrent is more specific (perhaps finding similar burglaries and requesting information only for matches between the two locations) they can still be used.

idle_zealot 2y ago
There are more important things than punishing petty theft.
- fortran77 2y ago
  Residential burglary is not petty theft. If the house isn't empty, a person could be seriously injured or killed.
  - ryaneager 2y ago
    Well, that sounds like you’re not not scared of burglary, but rather assault and/or murder
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      I confess that finding any stranger in my house for any motive would frighten the hell out of me. I suspect that’s true of nearly the whole population.
      - vuln 2y ago
        They’re just seeking refuge.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    And the residential burglars probably started with petty theft and got away with it, and became emboldened. Also see the broken window theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
    - idle_zealot 2y ago
      Note that BWT is not at all some accepted truth, and is merely a theory used to justify some (pretty bad) policy decisions. This is mentioned in the linked wiki page.
giantg2 2y ago
I wonder if there can be nuance that if a person owns a private location, they can request the data for their property. This seems reasonable to me. The only people on the property should have permission and already be known to the owner. The ones who don't are trespassing and can be suspects for crimes committed during that time.
- kardos 2y ago
  You'd need geofencing of mobiles to be precise and accurate to about a meter for that to work. Is that the case?
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "You'd need geofencing of mobiles to be precise and accurate to about a meter for that to work." That's not true. There are many types of properties. Large properties could accomodate large margins of error, multiple times greater than the fine grain location data when using a poont in the middle of the property. There are some types of properties that this couldn't be applied to, such as apartments.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    If there are 5G towers that might be possible
ziddoap 2y ago
They are also quite effective at subjecting completely innocent people to criminal investigations.
- deelowe 2y ago
  Exactly. Some people seem to have the opinion that a thing is good if it generally proves effective a capturing criminals. Others have the opinion that capturing criminals is only good if there's a very low risk of innocents being caught up in the process. I'm in the latter group.
  - alwa 2y ago
    In general, though, doesn’t more (and more reliable) information permit more accurate conclusions? Wouldn’t this type of data reduce the risk of innocents being caught up, compared to asking cops or neighbors to hazard their best guess at who might have been around at the time of the crime?
    - jliptzin 2y ago
      I’m ok with TVs and jewelry getting stolen occasionally if it means my government is not constantly tracking my every move
      - alwa 2y ago
        Isn’t the whole geofence request paradigm an elegant compromise to address that, though? The requestors don’t get to track everyone’s every move. Instead, they have to specify exactly where and when based on a thing that actually happened, and the private corporation controlling all that location data decides whether or not the request is narrow enough to answer. A mechanism like this allows them to realize the social benefits of that kind of a data trove existing, while providing some kind of a check on the way they use that data. However flimsy that check may be, it still seems really different from the government itself collecting and controlling all that data itself. And if anything, it takes the wind out of the argument that government properly should be the custodians of that kind of data: they can use it in the rare cases where they can describe a clear purpose, but they can’t just go frolicking through the movements of every person in their jurisdiction for funsies [0]. Is it necessarily bad that, in the US system, it turned out to be just the tacky companies slinging ads who control that utterly comprehensive archive of spy data, and it’s the guys with guns who have to ask nicely to access it? [0] at least not through mobile geolocation data. Contrast with Flock Safety’s nationwide mutual data exchange compacts: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article288186795.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/artic...
Noumenon72 2y ago
They never make these decisions with regard for the societal benefits of solving crime, they just ban policing and congratulate themselves on preventing bad policing. They could have narrowed this down to a new definition of probable cause rather than saying "See that terrorist on video using his GPS to plant bombs at the orphanage? Sorry, we can't find 'im."
- vuln 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bee_rider 2y ago
  We have a rule-of-law system in the US, at least that’s the ideal. The court shouldn’t be changing the laws to make policing easier. That’s what the legislative branch is for.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I hear that a fair bit: "that's what the legislature is for". Has the Congress ever responded by actually passing a law? Passing a law is a very high bar, especially with the filibuster, and a President can still veto it. It's supposed to be for checks and balances, but I see a lot of checks and very few balances. I know that it's not the court's responsibility to fix the rest of the system. But it feels disingenuous to say that the legislature could fix it when they know perfectly well that they won't.
    - Shog9 2y ago
      > Has the Congress ever responded by actually passing a law? Yes. Despite appearances to the contrary (and the exceptionally lethargic behavior of the current (118th) congress), Congress does actually pass laws (and revisions to existing laws), often in response to deficiencies identified by courts and law enforcement in what is currently on the books. If you're interested in following this, the library of congress website [1] has half-way decent filtering. > I know that it's not the court's responsibility to fix the rest of the system. But it feels disingenuous to say that the legislature could fix it when they know perfectly well that they won't. Forget responsibility, it's not even within the court's purview - in order for a ruling to stand (much less set precedent), it must be based on the law as it exists (including past precedent); ignoring that might feel good to watch, and would certainly make life interesting for participants in one specific case... But in no way compensates for an inability to legislate on the part of actual, elected, legislators. If you're frustrated, vote for congressfolk who get things done vs. blather on, don't wish for a magic judge. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22congress%22%3A118%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legis...
candiddevmike 2y ago
Fix the root cause of why folks need to steal instead of invading everyone's privacy?
- mc32 2y ago
  I see this implication over and over (that poor hungry people steal). Poor people don't often steal. They might pilfer here and there, but they're not doing outright stealing or robbing. I've known poor people, I've lived with poor people and by and large they are not thieves. They may keep something, sneak something, but they are not breaking in and stealing stuff --if they do take things not theirs, it's "passive" (i.e. opportunistic.) People who steal are often of two types, career criminals, pert of an organized (this can be peripheral) crime organization, or drugged out zombies who could not hold a job. There's a possible third, impulse theft by teenagers --these are low numbers. It sticks in my craw when people so easily imply poor people steal and burgle. All the hand to mouth poor people who on occasion dumpster dove and all that, did not steal things, break into homes etc.
  - candiddevmike 2y ago
    Sorry, can you show me where in my comment I pointed at poverty being the root cause?
    - mc32 2y ago
      So, according to you what are the root causes of burglary and theft?
  - em-bee 2y ago
    poverty is not the problem, lack of moral education is. we teach STEM in schools, but we assume that moral behavior is obvious and natural. we don't teach children why moral behavior is important, and more critically we don't teach that moral behavior includes caring for others, and that doing so will benefit all of us. instead we teach children to compete against each other, and we put them in situations where selfish behavior is the best way to get ahead. at best we try to scare them about the risks of crime, but we don't show them the benefits of being helpful instead of selfish. no education is going to completely eradicate crime, but i do believe there is a correlation between the quality of education and the amount of moral education and crimerates.
wonderwonder 2y ago
I feel for you but I'm hoping they are not. Look at they UK, that is where giving law enforcement this power leads. Citizens rounded up for protesting. "Show me everyone that was in the vicinity of the protest for x-y. UK even has a recent precedent where you are refused bail if you were just watching, you did not even have to participate. https://web.archive.org/web/20240810105207/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/09/judge-refuses-bail-riot-bystanders-belfast/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240810105207/https://www.teleg...
xnyan 2y ago
> That's how many burglaries are solved in my area I'm interested by this, could you post some examples?

idle_zealot 2y ago

There are more important things than punishing petty theft.

fortran77 2y ago
Residential burglary is not petty theft. If the house isn't empty, a person could be seriously injured or killed.
- ryaneager 2y ago
  Well, that sounds like you’re not not scared of burglary, but rather assault and/or murder
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    I confess that finding any stranger in my house for any motive would frighten the hell out of me. I suspect that’s true of nearly the whole population.
    - vuln 2y ago
      They’re just seeking refuge.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  And the residential burglars probably started with petty theft and got away with it, and became emboldened. Also see the broken window theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    Note that BWT is not at all some accepted truth, and is merely a theory used to justify some (pretty bad) policy decisions. This is mentioned in the linked wiki page.

giantg2 2y ago

I wonder if there can be nuance that if a person owns a private location, they can request the data for their property. This seems reasonable to me. The only people on the property should have permission and already be known to the owner. The ones who don't are trespassing and can be suspects for crimes committed during that time.

kardos 2y ago
You'd need geofencing of mobiles to be precise and accurate to about a meter for that to work. Is that the case?
- giantg2 2y ago
  "You'd need geofencing of mobiles to be precise and accurate to about a meter for that to work." That's not true. There are many types of properties. Large properties could accomodate large margins of error, multiple times greater than the fine grain location data when using a poont in the middle of the property. There are some types of properties that this couldn't be applied to, such as apartments.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  If there are 5G towers that might be possible

ziddoap 2y ago

They are also quite effective at subjecting completely innocent people to criminal investigations.

deelowe 2y ago
Exactly. Some people seem to have the opinion that a thing is good if it generally proves effective a capturing criminals. Others have the opinion that capturing criminals is only good if there's a very low risk of innocents being caught up in the process. I'm in the latter group.
- alwa 2y ago
  In general, though, doesn’t more (and more reliable) information permit more accurate conclusions? Wouldn’t this type of data reduce the risk of innocents being caught up, compared to asking cops or neighbors to hazard their best guess at who might have been around at the time of the crime?
  - jliptzin 2y ago
    I’m ok with TVs and jewelry getting stolen occasionally if it means my government is not constantly tracking my every move
    - alwa 2y ago
      Isn’t the whole geofence request paradigm an elegant compromise to address that, though? The requestors don’t get to track everyone’s every move. Instead, they have to specify exactly where and when based on a thing that actually happened, and the private corporation controlling all that location data decides whether or not the request is narrow enough to answer. A mechanism like this allows them to realize the social benefits of that kind of a data trove existing, while providing some kind of a check on the way they use that data. However flimsy that check may be, it still seems really different from the government itself collecting and controlling all that data itself. And if anything, it takes the wind out of the argument that government properly should be the custodians of that kind of data: they can use it in the rare cases where they can describe a clear purpose, but they can’t just go frolicking through the movements of every person in their jurisdiction for funsies [0]. Is it necessarily bad that, in the US system, it turned out to be just the tacky companies slinging ads who control that utterly comprehensive archive of spy data, and it’s the guys with guns who have to ask nicely to access it? [0] at least not through mobile geolocation data. Contrast with Flock Safety’s nationwide mutual data exchange compacts: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article288186795.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/artic...

Noumenon72 2y ago

They never make these decisions with regard for the societal benefits of solving crime, they just ban policing and congratulate themselves on preventing bad policing. They could have narrowed this down to a new definition of probable cause rather than saying "See that terrorist on video using his GPS to plant bombs at the orphanage? Sorry, we can't find 'im."

vuln 2y ago
[flagged]
bee_rider 2y ago
We have a rule-of-law system in the US, at least that’s the ideal. The court shouldn’t be changing the laws to make policing easier. That’s what the legislative branch is for.
- jfengel 2y ago
  I hear that a fair bit: "that's what the legislature is for". Has the Congress ever responded by actually passing a law? Passing a law is a very high bar, especially with the filibuster, and a President can still veto it. It's supposed to be for checks and balances, but I see a lot of checks and very few balances. I know that it's not the court's responsibility to fix the rest of the system. But it feels disingenuous to say that the legislature could fix it when they know perfectly well that they won't.
  - Shog9 2y ago
    > Has the Congress ever responded by actually passing a law? Yes. Despite appearances to the contrary (and the exceptionally lethargic behavior of the current (118th) congress), Congress does actually pass laws (and revisions to existing laws), often in response to deficiencies identified by courts and law enforcement in what is currently on the books. If you're interested in following this, the library of congress website [1] has half-way decent filtering. > I know that it's not the court's responsibility to fix the rest of the system. But it feels disingenuous to say that the legislature could fix it when they know perfectly well that they won't. Forget responsibility, it's not even within the court's purview - in order for a ruling to stand (much less set precedent), it must be based on the law as it exists (including past precedent); ignoring that might feel good to watch, and would certainly make life interesting for participants in one specific case... But in no way compensates for an inability to legislate on the part of actual, elected, legislators. If you're frustrated, vote for congressfolk who get things done vs. blather on, don't wish for a magic judge. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22congress%22%3A118%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legis...

candiddevmike 2y ago

Fix the root cause of why folks need to steal instead of invading everyone's privacy?

mc32 2y ago
I see this implication over and over (that poor hungry people steal). Poor people don't often steal. They might pilfer here and there, but they're not doing outright stealing or robbing. I've known poor people, I've lived with poor people and by and large they are not thieves. They may keep something, sneak something, but they are not breaking in and stealing stuff --if they do take things not theirs, it's "passive" (i.e. opportunistic.) People who steal are often of two types, career criminals, pert of an organized (this can be peripheral) crime organization, or drugged out zombies who could not hold a job. There's a possible third, impulse theft by teenagers --these are low numbers. It sticks in my craw when people so easily imply poor people steal and burgle. All the hand to mouth poor people who on occasion dumpster dove and all that, did not steal things, break into homes etc.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Sorry, can you show me where in my comment I pointed at poverty being the root cause?
  - mc32 2y ago
    So, according to you what are the root causes of burglary and theft?
- em-bee 2y ago
  poverty is not the problem, lack of moral education is. we teach STEM in schools, but we assume that moral behavior is obvious and natural. we don't teach children why moral behavior is important, and more critically we don't teach that moral behavior includes caring for others, and that doing so will benefit all of us. instead we teach children to compete against each other, and we put them in situations where selfish behavior is the best way to get ahead. at best we try to scare them about the risks of crime, but we don't show them the benefits of being helpful instead of selfish. no education is going to completely eradicate crime, but i do believe there is a correlation between the quality of education and the amount of moral education and crimerates.

wonderwonder 2y ago

I feel for you but I'm hoping they are not. Look at they UK, that is where giving law enforcement this power leads. Citizens rounded up for protesting. "Show me everyone that was in the vicinity of the protest for x-y. UK even has a recent precedent where you are refused bail if you were just watching, you did not even have to participate. https://web.archive.org/web/20240810105207/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/09/judge-refuses-bail-riot-bystanders-belfast/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240810105207/https://www.teleg...

xnyan 2y ago

> That's how many burglaries are solved in my area I'm interested by this, could you post some examples?