2 ms·

I should point out, the original post I meade that spawned this rather large thread, had no bearing on the decision - it was my opinion purely. Something else

by Aloha 13y ago

I should point out, the original post I meade that spawned this rather large thread, had no bearing on the decision - it was my opinion purely. Something else I should point out - there were mobile (pre-cellular) phones in the 1970's and some geolocation data could be implied from their use - because in most cases they couldn't roam beyond their home area. For what its worth, some of this data could have been gathered as early as 1979 - when the first AMPS systems were being turned up. Beyond that - I guess what I'm looking to say is, landline equivalence, I don't think you should be able to collect more information about a mobile phone user than a landline one, even if the information is there - at least not without a warrant. My discussion here has really been about what is acceptable without probable cause and a warrant, and not just for the NSA - but for all Law Enforcement Agencies. I think Call Detail Records and Call Associated Geolocation Data is acceptable, but really, nothing else, not without probable cause and a warrant, I even think that using big data techniques on CDR's is novel and worthwhile - but it should be as a clue to find more information thru old fashioned police work, not as the end evidence.

dalke 13y ago
Yes, I do believe I understand your argument. My question to you is three-fold: 1) the judge gives 10 pages of opinion, with 4 distinct points, on why land-line equivalency cannot be used as a guide. Can you speak to why you disagree with those 4 points? 2) Do SMS and app data count as "telephone calls"? Does an open TCP socket, which isn't in use, count as a "telephone call"? Under a landline equivalency doctrine, your answers must be yes. In that case, if most people's phones check for messages automatically every 5 minutes, then is there really that much of a difference than what we have now? Will your view change in the future when peoples' phones connect every minute, or have a continuous connection? Also, since you mentioned the start of this rather large thread, there's another point. You said "I'm somewhat OK with big data being used in this case, these are cases that traditional police work cannot be used in" Judge Leon pointed out that the government has provided no evidence that "big data" was used to solve any case, and that a government witness has stated that most of the times other methods could be used, only that metadata gathering is faster and cheaper. 3) Given that, how do you draw your opinion that traditional police work cannot be used in this case, when the government themselves cannot convince the judge?

by Aloha 13y ago

dalke 13y ago

Yes, I do believe I understand your argument. My question to you is three-fold: 1) the judge gives 10 pages of opinion, with 4 distinct points, on why land-line equivalency cannot be used as a guide. Can you speak to why you disagree with those 4 points? 2) Do SMS and app data count as "telephone calls"? Does an open TCP socket, which isn't in use, count as a "telephone call"? Under a landline equivalency doctrine, your answers must be yes. In that case, if most people's phones check for messages automatically every 5 minutes, then is there really that much of a difference than what we have now? Will your view change in the future when peoples' phones connect every minute, or have a continuous connection? Also, since you mentioned the start of this rather large thread, there's another point. You said "I'm somewhat OK with big data being used in this case, these are cases that traditional police work cannot be used in" Judge Leon pointed out that the government has provided no evidence that "big data" was used to solve any case, and that a government witness has stated that most of the times other methods could be used, only that metadata gathering is faster and cheaper. 3) Given that, how do you draw your opinion that traditional police work cannot be used in this case, when the government themselves cannot convince the judge?