7 ms·

ICE Is Buying a Tool to Track Phones, Without Warrants

166 points by beezle 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daft_pink 1y ago
TLDR. ICE is buying a software tool that analyzes information purchased from commercial data brokers to track people.
- vkou 1y ago
  Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions? --- [1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases. [2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. [3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
  - etchalon 1y ago
    Because the government has decided mass-surveillance is OK so long as they really, really want to do it.
  - stackskipton 1y ago
    Because they have funding and Deportations are a priority for this administration.
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      Do you think they’re not gonna use this on you next?
      - stackskipton 1y ago
        They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here. I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
      - pessimizer 1y ago
        Don't you think they're using this on you now?
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jackstraw42 1y ago
      for those of us who have tried to keep our soul while working in tech, what would you recommend going forward?
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. I'm not sure what HN you're reading, but basically every mass surveillance comment thread is overwhelming against it, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277
  - qwe----3 1y ago
    Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?
    - tldrthelaw 1y ago
      How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
    - vkou 1y ago
      48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
      - almosthere 1y ago
        So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
        drdaeman 1y ago
        Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes? If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
    - vkou 1y ago
      The overstay is the civil infraction I'm referring to.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever. >[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to. What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Yes, literally everyone, because that's how the law is written. Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense. ---- > What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions. You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. I stand corrected, thanks. >You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.) Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that. The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter. And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity. The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?
- BinaryIgor 1y ago
  I wonder what's the most important source of location data here - apps that you have given permissions to do so? Telecom providers? GPS?
  - daft_pink 1y ago
    I'm also very curious. It's too bad someone doesn't come up with a tool so you can see your own data.... I wrote this TLDR, because I wondered what I would have to do to prevent tracking (turn off bluetooth etc), but it's just a commercial data broker.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity. And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.
titzer 1y ago
Wait until they find out what "anonymous" data phones are uploading to the big tech companies who happen to own application platforms and mobile operating systems.
chinathrow 1y ago
Why is noone stopping them?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ukd1 1y ago
    "You" are, by not sharing your location with countless random startups. But, seemingly that's not working.
- sneak 1y ago
  Because it's not really illegal. People are voluntarily sharing their data with corporations via social media and apps, and those corporations are voluntarily selling it to data brokers, who are then voluntarily selling it to the SaaS that ICE is using here to track people. The problem here is a lack of data protection laws. It's entirely legal for any private citizen who wants to to purchase huge amounts of mass location data/history for billions of people.
  - ruined 1y ago
    "voluntarily" i consider myself fairly knowledgeable about tracking techniques and countermeasures. despite constant effort and techniques that are extreme or impossible for the average individual, i believe my evasions are minimally effective. it's also increasingly difficult to use the internet or even exist in public at all without some kind of compromise that invalidates most of that work.
  - ydlr 1y ago
    > the Department of Homeland Security had suspended the purchase of commercial location data after the Inspector General found the agency had violated federal law, but that temporary safeguard has now been dismantled. Sounds like it is still illegal. They just don't care.
herbert58473 1y ago
Don’t worry folks this will be censored very soon. Can’t have any articles that encourage double plus wrong think on the vc echo chamber
superkuh 1y ago
If you carry a radio based tracker on your person you will be tracked. This information will eventually be abused. It's not a hard conclusion to come to, and one supported by too many repetitions of abuse in both sensible and not sensible nations to disregard... but somehow it is (disregarded). Cell phones are just too useful for people to acknowledge what they are and what the solution is: stop carrying a radio tracker or at least leave it turned off most of the time.
- palata 1y ago
  Not sure if you're trying to make a point or just to self-congratulate yourself for thinking this since the 2000s (do you mention a date because you feel you predicted something unexpected?). Spoiler: it's obvious to anyone who knows about tech.
  - superkuh 1y ago
    Not sure if you're disregarding the call to action to turn off your cell phone when not using it or if my prior point is literally playing out as we speak ("You know the problem but it's too useful to acknowledge."). I mention the date because this problem has been known by everyone, not just me, for a very long time. But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
    - palata 1y ago
      I do what I can with my own threat model. Actually, I probably do a lot more than what my threat model requires, just because it's interesting and for the learning experience. I don't go as far as to turn off my cell phone when not using it, but I run GrapheneOS :-). > But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge. That's wrong. They just don't understand and don't care to understand. They choose not to act, because they don't see a need. Which is true for many things and different groups. You care about turning off your cell phone, how much do you care about climate change or the mass extinction we are responsible for? I would argue that the equivalent of turning off your cell phone would at the very least be to be a vegetarian. Are you, or are you "incapable of acting on the knowledge"? :-)
s5300 1y ago
[dead]
ashton314 1y ago
So, what's the best way to fight back, personally and collectively? Yes, yes—we need legal measures against this sort of thing—but are there tracking mitigation measures that known to be effective on mobile devices? Is there a way we can dilute this commercially-available data to poison the well, as it were?
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Stop using mobile devices.
jaredwiener 1y ago
Original article the link cites: https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-locations-of-hundreds-of-millions-of-phones-every-day/ https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-location...
- smartbit 1y ago
  https://archive.is/WFsNN https://archive.is/WFsNN
chairmansteve 1y ago
Leave your phone at home, if you are worried.
- radlad 1y ago
  I cannot do my job without my phone. Increasingly, I also cannot pay or utilize services without my phone.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  And you don’t think you’ll be marked as suspicious for leaving your home phone at home? Why did you leave your phone at home? What are you hiding? Why are you afraid of being tracked by us? Do you not understand anything about privacy and why it’s important?
- muwtyhg 1y ago
  That's where the network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and gait detection come in! Barreling towards a complete lack of privacy is scary and waving it away as "just don't bring your phone" is massively naive. There are many many ways you can be identified and tracked besides your own phone, because there is so much incentive to do it. Even if everyone stopped bringing their phone everywhere out of fear of tracking, they would _still be tracked_
tldrthelaw 1y ago
The talking point that private industry is tracking you as well is tired, and ostensibly smart people should stop trotting it out. Meta and Apple can't arrest you or secret you away to a foreign country -- at least not yet. That makes the distinction a difference.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  The better talking point here is that once the data is collected, you must assume the government can get to it, always. Who actually stores it (a public or private entity) is an irrelevant implementation detail, and people pretending otherwise are being foolish.
  - tldrthelaw 1y ago
    Sure, but how is the government simply obtaining the data directly not an escalation? A subpoena at least requires an additional step and ostensible checks.
    - ytpete 1y ago
      Sounds like the way they're obtaining it without a subpoena is by simply purchasing it from a commercial data broker, though. If that's true, I'd say the real problem is that a broker is willing to sell virtually anyone this data with essentially no oversight – a problem that's sadly existed for quite a while already. One of their buyers being the government isn't the first-order problem there.
- radlad 1y ago
  No, but they can easily be subpoenaed for said information.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    Or paid
  - tldrthelaw 1y ago
maerF0x0 1y ago
> Trump is quietly building a surveillance state, and almost no one is paying attention. To be fair this has been happening at least since 9/11 under both parties.
unit149 1y ago
[dead]
josefritzishere 1y ago
This sounds like crime.
drdaeman 1y ago
> This is exactly how Russia built its surveillance state. It began with the quiet centralization of telecommunications data, followed by the rollout of SORM, which gave the government mass interception and geolocation powers, and ended with the targeted use of those capabilities against political opponents, journalists, and civil society. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, and marginalized groups were the first targets—people with little power to resist. While I agree with the overall premise, but to best of my awareness (and I worked at an ISP in Russia in '00s) those statements are not entirely accurate. SORM is Russia's Room 641A, except that it's legislated and all done in the open. It started way before telecom consolidation (which started mid-'00s, when large enterprises with strong government ties started to absorb smaller companies) and initially crept in slowly. At first smaller telcos were able to step around the requirements and just promise to cooperate "if something" (essentially, looking up flow logs and/or running tcpdump after being served a proper warrant). AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Don't know about journalists or minorities. Shit started to hit the fan with mid-2010s rapid acceleration towards authoritarianism, when mandatory censorship and drastic expansion of online surveillance became a law. And mass/non-targeted phone tracking is a relatively modern development in Russia, mostly post-pandemics.
- palata 1y ago
  > AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Sounds similar to ChatControl, right? Not saying that the EU is turning authoritarian at all, but just that it is a tool that may turn evil in the future.
  - drdaeman 1y ago
    Somewhat similar in the "think of the children" and "we want this to fight the baddies" arguments. Both SORM and ChatControl have stated goals of mandatory warrant-less eavesdropping. That's about all in similarities, though. AFAIK, there's a difference in the system architecture: Russian SORM was a push from an existing agency (FSB) who became it's sole operator (and basically took over the country: Putin is KGB/FSB spawn), EU proposal seem to establish a clearinghouse-like system for various law enforcement agencies to access through. There's also a difference in oversight: FSB has none, EU proposes some, though I'm not really knowledgeable on the details. And - yeah - any tool that allows government to violate citizen rights is inherently dangerous if the government becomes hostile. This is clearly the case in Russia, and I'm not knowledgeable about EU at all so I cannot possibly tell.
JaKXz 1y ago
Why is this flagged?
- jsbisviewtiful 1y ago
  [flagged]
- kmijyiyxfbklao 1y ago
  Maybe because it's "US-based surveillance" https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
  - mdhb 1y ago
    JFC what a moron he is…
    - mx7zysuj4xew 1y ago
      people like him find themselves in waiting in the line for the showers wondering why they'd do this to "one of the good ones"
  - sph 1y ago
    That’s the new YC CEO? Jesus Christ. The techno-totalitarianism has infected the entire Silicon Valley.
  - Gud 1y ago
    Holy shit this is the ycombinator CEO? If you the reader are working on these technologies, I encourage you take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You are building a surveillance state for the rich to use against yourself, me and everyone else not part of the ruling class. You are helping cement the class divide.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Because rightwing bootlickers don't want the truth to be known.
toasted-subs 1y ago
Kind of makes me feel better about never having kids. Just be another crop for the police state.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wakawaka28 1y ago
The government already has a plethora of such tools. I don't like them but at least this is a case of using the tools to enforce the law.
- ytpete 1y ago
  Is "enforcing the law" what ICE has actually been doing lately, though?
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    Yes.

166 points by beezle 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daft_pink 1y ago

TLDR. ICE is buying a software tool that analyzes information purchased from commercial data brokers to track people.

vkou 1y ago
Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions? --- [1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases. [2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. [3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
- etchalon 1y ago
  Because the government has decided mass-surveillance is OK so long as they really, really want to do it.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  Because they have funding and Deportations are a priority for this administration.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    Do you think they’re not gonna use this on you next?
    - stackskipton 1y ago
      They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here. I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      Don't you think they're using this on you now?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jackstraw42 1y ago
    for those of us who have tried to keep our soul while working in tech, what would you recommend going forward?
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. I'm not sure what HN you're reading, but basically every mass surveillance comment thread is overwhelming against it, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277
- qwe----3 1y ago
  Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?
  - tldrthelaw 1y ago
    How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
  - vkou 1y ago
    48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
    - almosthere 1y ago
      So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
      - drdaeman 1y ago
        Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes? If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
  - vkou 1y ago
    The overstay is the civil infraction I'm referring to.
- gruez 1y ago
  >[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever. >[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to. What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Yes, literally everyone, because that's how the law is written. Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense. ---- > What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions. You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. I stand corrected, thanks. >You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.) Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.
malcolmgreaves 1y ago
That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that. The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter. And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity. The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?
BinaryIgor 1y ago
I wonder what's the most important source of location data here - apps that you have given permissions to do so? Telecom providers? GPS?
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I'm also very curious. It's too bad someone doesn't come up with a tool so you can see your own data.... I wrote this TLDR, because I wondered what I would have to do to prevent tracking (turn off bluetooth etc), but it's just a commercial data broker.
pessimizer 1y ago
And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity. And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.

titzer 1y ago

Wait until they find out what "anonymous" data phones are uploading to the big tech companies who happen to own application platforms and mobile operating systems.

chinathrow 1y ago

Why is noone stopping them?

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
[flagged]
- ukd1 1y ago
  "You" are, by not sharing your location with countless random startups. But, seemingly that's not working.
sneak 1y ago
Because it's not really illegal. People are voluntarily sharing their data with corporations via social media and apps, and those corporations are voluntarily selling it to data brokers, who are then voluntarily selling it to the SaaS that ICE is using here to track people. The problem here is a lack of data protection laws. It's entirely legal for any private citizen who wants to to purchase huge amounts of mass location data/history for billions of people.
- ruined 1y ago
  "voluntarily" i consider myself fairly knowledgeable about tracking techniques and countermeasures. despite constant effort and techniques that are extreme or impossible for the average individual, i believe my evasions are minimally effective. it's also increasingly difficult to use the internet or even exist in public at all without some kind of compromise that invalidates most of that work.
- ydlr 1y ago
  > the Department of Homeland Security had suspended the purchase of commercial location data after the Inspector General found the agency had violated federal law, but that temporary safeguard has now been dismantled. Sounds like it is still illegal. They just don't care.

herbert58473 1y ago

Don’t worry folks this will be censored very soon. Can’t have any articles that encourage double plus wrong think on the vc echo chamber

superkuh 1y ago

If you carry a radio based tracker on your person you will be tracked. This information will eventually be abused. It's not a hard conclusion to come to, and one supported by too many repetitions of abuse in both sensible and not sensible nations to disregard... but somehow it is (disregarded). Cell phones are just too useful for people to acknowledge what they are and what the solution is: stop carrying a radio tracker or at least leave it turned off most of the time.

palata 1y ago
Not sure if you're trying to make a point or just to self-congratulate yourself for thinking this since the 2000s (do you mention a date because you feel you predicted something unexpected?). Spoiler: it's obvious to anyone who knows about tech.
- superkuh 1y ago
  Not sure if you're disregarding the call to action to turn off your cell phone when not using it or if my prior point is literally playing out as we speak ("You know the problem but it's too useful to acknowledge."). I mention the date because this problem has been known by everyone, not just me, for a very long time. But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
  - palata 1y ago
    I do what I can with my own threat model. Actually, I probably do a lot more than what my threat model requires, just because it's interesting and for the learning experience. I don't go as far as to turn off my cell phone when not using it, but I run GrapheneOS :-). > But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge. That's wrong. They just don't understand and don't care to understand. They choose not to act, because they don't see a need. Which is true for many things and different groups. You care about turning off your cell phone, how much do you care about climate change or the mass extinction we are responsible for? I would argue that the equivalent of turning off your cell phone would at the very least be to be a vegetarian. Are you, or are you "incapable of acting on the knowledge"? :-)

s5300 1y ago

[dead]

ashton314 1y ago

So, what's the best way to fight back, personally and collectively? Yes, yes—we need legal measures against this sort of thing—but are there tracking mitigation measures that known to be effective on mobile devices? Is there a way we can dilute this commercially-available data to poison the well, as it were?

Ekaros 1y ago
Stop using mobile devices.

jaredwiener 1y ago

Original article the link cites: https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-locations-of-hundreds-of-millions-of-phones-every-day/ https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-location...

smartbit 1y ago
https://archive.is/WFsNN https://archive.is/WFsNN

chairmansteve 1y ago

Leave your phone at home, if you are worried.

radlad 1y ago
I cannot do my job without my phone. Increasingly, I also cannot pay or utilize services without my phone.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
And you don’t think you’ll be marked as suspicious for leaving your home phone at home? Why did you leave your phone at home? What are you hiding? Why are you afraid of being tracked by us? Do you not understand anything about privacy and why it’s important?
muwtyhg 1y ago
That's where the network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and gait detection come in! Barreling towards a complete lack of privacy is scary and waving it away as "just don't bring your phone" is massively naive. There are many many ways you can be identified and tracked besides your own phone, because there is so much incentive to do it. Even if everyone stopped bringing their phone everywhere out of fear of tracking, they would _still be tracked_

tldrthelaw 1y ago

The talking point that private industry is tracking you as well is tired, and ostensibly smart people should stop trotting it out. Meta and Apple can't arrest you or secret you away to a foreign country -- at least not yet. That makes the distinction a difference.

Analemma_ 1y ago
The better talking point here is that once the data is collected, you must assume the government can get to it, always. Who actually stores it (a public or private entity) is an irrelevant implementation detail, and people pretending otherwise are being foolish.
- tldrthelaw 1y ago
  Sure, but how is the government simply obtaining the data directly not an escalation? A subpoena at least requires an additional step and ostensible checks.
  - ytpete 1y ago
    Sounds like the way they're obtaining it without a subpoena is by simply purchasing it from a commercial data broker, though. If that's true, I'd say the real problem is that a broker is willing to sell virtually anyone this data with essentially no oversight – a problem that's sadly existed for quite a while already. One of their buyers being the government isn't the first-order problem there.
radlad 1y ago
No, but they can easily be subpoenaed for said information.
- phkahler 1y ago
  Or paid
- tldrthelaw 1y ago

maerF0x0 1y ago

> Trump is quietly building a surveillance state, and almost no one is paying attention. To be fair this has been happening at least since 9/11 under both parties.

unit149 1y ago

[dead]

josefritzishere 1y ago

This sounds like crime.

drdaeman 1y ago

> This is exactly how Russia built its surveillance state. It began with the quiet centralization of telecommunications data, followed by the rollout of SORM, which gave the government mass interception and geolocation powers, and ended with the targeted use of those capabilities against political opponents, journalists, and civil society. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, and marginalized groups were the first targets—people with little power to resist. While I agree with the overall premise, but to best of my awareness (and I worked at an ISP in Russia in '00s) those statements are not entirely accurate. SORM is Russia's Room 641A, except that it's legislated and all done in the open. It started way before telecom consolidation (which started mid-'00s, when large enterprises with strong government ties started to absorb smaller companies) and initially crept in slowly. At first smaller telcos were able to step around the requirements and just promise to cooperate "if something" (essentially, looking up flow logs and/or running tcpdump after being served a proper warrant). AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Don't know about journalists or minorities. Shit started to hit the fan with mid-2010s rapid acceleration towards authoritarianism, when mandatory censorship and drastic expansion of online surveillance became a law. And mass/non-targeted phone tracking is a relatively modern development in Russia, mostly post-pandemics.

palata 1y ago
> AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Sounds similar to ChatControl, right? Not saying that the EU is turning authoritarian at all, but just that it is a tool that may turn evil in the future.
- drdaeman 1y ago
  Somewhat similar in the "think of the children" and "we want this to fight the baddies" arguments. Both SORM and ChatControl have stated goals of mandatory warrant-less eavesdropping. That's about all in similarities, though. AFAIK, there's a difference in the system architecture: Russian SORM was a push from an existing agency (FSB) who became it's sole operator (and basically took over the country: Putin is KGB/FSB spawn), EU proposal seem to establish a clearinghouse-like system for various law enforcement agencies to access through. There's also a difference in oversight: FSB has none, EU proposes some, though I'm not really knowledgeable on the details. And - yeah - any tool that allows government to violate citizen rights is inherently dangerous if the government becomes hostile. This is clearly the case in Russia, and I'm not knowledgeable about EU at all so I cannot possibly tell.

JaKXz 1y ago

Why is this flagged?

jsbisviewtiful 1y ago
[flagged]
kmijyiyxfbklao 1y ago
Maybe because it's "US-based surveillance" https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
- mdhb 1y ago
  JFC what a moron he is…
  - mx7zysuj4xew 1y ago
    people like him find themselves in waiting in the line for the showers wondering why they'd do this to "one of the good ones"
- sph 1y ago
  That’s the new YC CEO? Jesus Christ. The techno-totalitarianism has infected the entire Silicon Valley.
- Gud 1y ago
  Holy shit this is the ycombinator CEO? If you the reader are working on these technologies, I encourage you take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You are building a surveillance state for the rich to use against yourself, me and everyone else not part of the ruling class. You are helping cement the class divide.
OutOfHere 1y ago
Because rightwing bootlickers don't want the truth to be known.

toasted-subs 1y ago

Kind of makes me feel better about never having kids. Just be another crop for the police state.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

wakawaka28 1y ago

The government already has a plethora of such tools. I don't like them but at least this is a case of using the tools to enforce the law.

ytpete 1y ago
Is "enforcing the law" what ICE has actually been doing lately, though?
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  Yes.