5 ms·

Many worry about how these tools will be used to persecute people such as women seeking reproductive medical services. That is a problem. But what will people

Many worry about how these tools will be used to persecute people such as women seeking reproductive medical services. That is a problem. But what will people think of those same tools being used to enforce protection orders, to spot parole violators? I know where my opinions fall, but I also realize that the bulk of the population would trade in their privacy for any perception of increased safety.

jcgrillo 2y ago
If I were in law enforcement, had no morals, and just wanted to convict as many people as possible I'd build a system that automatically assembles a virtual dossier on everyone using these data streams. Then I'd implement detection heuristics that look for interesting dossiers. These could be used as the "classified" component of a case built by parallel construction[1]. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Not even. It's worse. They aren't even useful for that. They've tried that approach but it's actually less efficient than "good old fashioned police work" because it turns out that 99/100 of your hits are gonna be lawful weirdos, 1/100 is gonna be a petty drug dealer and the career advancing prosecution you actually wanted would have been much easier to find by using normal methods like inferring that a dealer has a supplier, a spy has a handler, etc, etc and trying to suss out who those people are. The NSA figured all this out post 9/11 when they were building data haystacks in search of terrorists. What the data haystacks do get used for is dragnet policing wherein an agency picks some crime they're gonna go hard on, pulls up a bunch of results of people who probably did it, tosses all the people who are likely to pose any risk to them (e.g. you don't see the ATF knocking on doors asking about Temu glock switches in bad parts of Detroit) and kicks in the doors of whoever's left. The data haystacks are also really useful for witch hunts when they get egg on their face and need to make someone pay, like that time they prosecuted anyone and everyone who they could construe as having done anything to help the kid who bombed the Boston Marathon, and the January 6 people of whom a great number were certainly just hapless. And this is in addition to the usual "opposition research" like the FBI bugging MLK and all that sort of crap.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If you had a location that was a known drug hot spot, you could use this data to see who frequented that location. Using that info, you could use "good old fashioned police work" to contact each person and get them to roll on someone else. That's much easier than sitting in a stakeout trying to ID those that come and go.
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      Or you watch them, find out where the stash house is, and call in an "anonymous tip" to another agency. They get a warrant, raid the stash, and it's all above board (or near enough). Parallel construction makes the mere existence of these data sets extremely dangerous.
      - indymike 2y ago
        Better hope the defense attorney doesn't ask who the caller was. Parallel construction is actually not legal and can result in evidence being inadmissible.
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        If the answer is "we don't know, they didn't leave their name" then it's deniable if not actually legal. That's a pretty low bar to jump. This anonymous tip --> raid scenario happens all the time, it's called "swatting".
        dylan604 2y ago
        What "anonymous" tip line run by law enforcement is not capturing caller ID and any other location that can be garnered during the call? If there are any, I'd say that is a total failure on the agency in question.
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        And if you call such a line from an identifiable device, such as your home or work land line or your cell phone, then you should absolutely expect to be identified! I assume someone who is motivated to remain anonymous would take the necessary precautions to do so. I don't think that's unreasonable?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  You can do things far more interesting than that with the dossiers on everyone that absolutely exist right now and that algorithms are constantly being run over. You can frame people for crimes for which you know they will have no defense, exactly like the Stasi did, and privately confront them about it. As they plead their innocence, tell them that you want to believe them, and if they can do a little work for you, they'll not only be arrested, but be rewarded! How would you like a job at Mother Jones, or the Guardian?
jareklupinski 2y ago
> the bulk of the population would trade in their privacy i think most people are on the fence / undecided, and the few that do "pick a side" only do so based on their personal life experiences (which includes family and community influences)
- mmooss 2y ago
  First, it's not a binary choice. It depends on the circumstance. Also, people are influenced by what other people say, especially people in tech. You can see people on HN saying how hopeless it all is. People on HN and your social circle are listening to what you say.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    No they're not. You preaching against tech just comes across as wack job crazy to those that don't care or already disagree. Maybe they aren't as far as thinking you're a wacko, but they've definitely grown tired and calloused from the non-stop and probably at least ignore it. Evidence by all the people continuing to use social media. Convenience wins out for the vast majority of people. People just want to be left alone and have nice things. As long as it is just advertisers knowing everything, the masses just won't care. Even if the state starts to take action, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they won't care either.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      History shows clearly that people can be very motivated by political and social issues; they will die for them. Right now, for example, people on the right are very motivated and active, often to their own detriment in terms of wealth, health, politically and socially. For some reason, when it comes to other causes, people repeat the obviously false (and hypocritical) right-wing talking point that it's all useless and hopeless. (Throwing around words like 'wack' and 'preaching' isn't evidence or a stronger argument.)
      - dylan604 2y ago
ideashower 2y ago
The U.S. Government is purchasing tools like these and using them: https://www.404media.co/inside-the-u-s-government-bought-tool-that-can-track-phones-at-abortion-clinics/ https://www.404media.co/inside-the-u-s-government-bought-too... This has been a widespread problem for the better part of at least half a decade, likely much more.
- sailfast 2y ago
  To do it on their own would be illegal. To buy it from a commercial vendor is an easy contract to write. Quite something. Perhaps we should write a new law making it illegal. They managed to outsource it on accident just because of a shared need with advertisers to target people.
michaelt 2y ago
> But what will people think of those same tools being used to enforce protection orders, to spot parole violators? If only our society had some orderly process to balance privacy with public safety - such as by having the cops explain to a judge why they need to track a given person, for how long, and so on. Perhaps also some rules about what counts as a good enough reason, and telling judges they can't grant overly broad, blanket permission. Someone should put something in the constitution about that.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  Counterpoint: > One DEA official had told Reuters: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept." Constitution or not, they're doing it.
  - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
    They're also using these tools to stalk women[0] [0]: https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-officers-abused-databases-stalk-lovers-journalists-enemies-ap-finds https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-office...
93po 2y ago
if you have a legal reason to track someone, make them wear a tracker. don't make everyone else lose their privacy and freedom to move without government oversight
- toader 2y ago
  [dead]

jcgrillo 2y ago

If I were in law enforcement, had no morals, and just wanted to convict as many people as possible I'd build a system that automatically assembles a virtual dossier on everyone using these data streams. Then I'd implement detection heuristics that look for interesting dossiers. These could be used as the "classified" component of a case built by parallel construction[1]. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

potato3732842 2y ago
Not even. It's worse. They aren't even useful for that. They've tried that approach but it's actually less efficient than "good old fashioned police work" because it turns out that 99/100 of your hits are gonna be lawful weirdos, 1/100 is gonna be a petty drug dealer and the career advancing prosecution you actually wanted would have been much easier to find by using normal methods like inferring that a dealer has a supplier, a spy has a handler, etc, etc and trying to suss out who those people are. The NSA figured all this out post 9/11 when they were building data haystacks in search of terrorists. What the data haystacks do get used for is dragnet policing wherein an agency picks some crime they're gonna go hard on, pulls up a bunch of results of people who probably did it, tosses all the people who are likely to pose any risk to them (e.g. you don't see the ATF knocking on doors asking about Temu glock switches in bad parts of Detroit) and kicks in the doors of whoever's left. The data haystacks are also really useful for witch hunts when they get egg on their face and need to make someone pay, like that time they prosecuted anyone and everyone who they could construe as having done anything to help the kid who bombed the Boston Marathon, and the January 6 people of whom a great number were certainly just hapless. And this is in addition to the usual "opposition research" like the FBI bugging MLK and all that sort of crap.
- dylan604 2y ago
  If you had a location that was a known drug hot spot, you could use this data to see who frequented that location. Using that info, you could use "good old fashioned police work" to contact each person and get them to roll on someone else. That's much easier than sitting in a stakeout trying to ID those that come and go.
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    Or you watch them, find out where the stash house is, and call in an "anonymous tip" to another agency. They get a warrant, raid the stash, and it's all above board (or near enough). Parallel construction makes the mere existence of these data sets extremely dangerous.
    - indymike 2y ago
      Better hope the defense attorney doesn't ask who the caller was. Parallel construction is actually not legal and can result in evidence being inadmissible.
      - jcgrillo 2y ago
        If the answer is "we don't know, they didn't leave their name" then it's deniable if not actually legal. That's a pretty low bar to jump. This anonymous tip --> raid scenario happens all the time, it's called "swatting".
        dylan604 2y ago
        What "anonymous" tip line run by law enforcement is not capturing caller ID and any other location that can be garnered during the call? If there are any, I'd say that is a total failure on the agency in question.
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        And if you call such a line from an identifiable device, such as your home or work land line or your cell phone, then you should absolutely expect to be identified! I assume someone who is motivated to remain anonymous would take the necessary precautions to do so. I don't think that's unreasonable?
pessimizer 2y ago
You can do things far more interesting than that with the dossiers on everyone that absolutely exist right now and that algorithms are constantly being run over. You can frame people for crimes for which you know they will have no defense, exactly like the Stasi did, and privately confront them about it. As they plead their innocence, tell them that you want to believe them, and if they can do a little work for you, they'll not only be arrested, but be rewarded! How would you like a job at Mother Jones, or the Guardian?

jareklupinski 2y ago

> the bulk of the population would trade in their privacy i think most people are on the fence / undecided, and the few that do "pick a side" only do so based on their personal life experiences (which includes family and community influences)

mmooss 2y ago
First, it's not a binary choice. It depends on the circumstance. Also, people are influenced by what other people say, especially people in tech. You can see people on HN saying how hopeless it all is. People on HN and your social circle are listening to what you say.
- dylan604 2y ago
  No they're not. You preaching against tech just comes across as wack job crazy to those that don't care or already disagree. Maybe they aren't as far as thinking you're a wacko, but they've definitely grown tired and calloused from the non-stop and probably at least ignore it. Evidence by all the people continuing to use social media. Convenience wins out for the vast majority of people. People just want to be left alone and have nice things. As long as it is just advertisers knowing everything, the masses just won't care. Even if the state starts to take action, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they won't care either.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    History shows clearly that people can be very motivated by political and social issues; they will die for them. Right now, for example, people on the right are very motivated and active, often to their own detriment in terms of wealth, health, politically and socially. For some reason, when it comes to other causes, people repeat the obviously false (and hypocritical) right-wing talking point that it's all useless and hopeless. (Throwing around words like 'wack' and 'preaching' isn't evidence or a stronger argument.)
    - dylan604 2y ago

ideashower 2y ago

The U.S. Government is purchasing tools like these and using them: https://www.404media.co/inside-the-u-s-government-bought-tool-that-can-track-phones-at-abortion-clinics/ https://www.404media.co/inside-the-u-s-government-bought-too... This has been a widespread problem for the better part of at least half a decade, likely much more.

sailfast 2y ago
To do it on their own would be illegal. To buy it from a commercial vendor is an easy contract to write. Quite something. Perhaps we should write a new law making it illegal. They managed to outsource it on accident just because of a shared need with advertisers to target people.

michaelt 2y ago

> But what will people think of those same tools being used to enforce protection orders, to spot parole violators? If only our society had some orderly process to balance privacy with public safety - such as by having the cops explain to a judge why they need to track a given person, for how long, and so on. Perhaps also some rules about what counts as a good enough reason, and telling judges they can't grant overly broad, blanket permission. Someone should put something in the constitution about that.

jcgrillo 2y ago
Counterpoint: > One DEA official had told Reuters: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept." Constitution or not, they're doing it.
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  They're also using these tools to stalk women[0] [0]: https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-officers-abused-databases-stalk-lovers-journalists-enemies-ap-finds https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-office...

93po 2y ago

if you have a legal reason to track someone, make them wear a tracker. don't make everyone else lose their privacy and freedom to move without government oversight

toader 2y ago
[dead]