5 ms·
Imagine if they could get a hold of that kind of data in an investigation. They'd know where you were, what you did, who you were with, etc.
by somewhatjustin 13y ago
Imagine if they could get a hold of that kind of data in an investigation. They'd know where you were, what you did, who you were with, etc.
- bilbo0s 13y agoThey can already get your mobile records during a court ordered investigation. That information includes where you were and who you were with. Or rather where your phone was and who your phone was with.
- CompleteMoron2 13y agodont forget http://indoo.rs/ http://indoo.rs/ yeah he is right - your cell phone imei mac, all those data points are recorded at each cell tower as long as it is on. I mean they can still use this marketing data to see if you are a iphone or android user and decide on application and marketing initiatives for mobile on the short term. I don't really think its something to be implicitly scared of from my analysis, but I think one should maybe keep an eye on having your cellphone wifi on all the time so your data doesnt pass thru open networks you arent aware of.
- e12e 13y agoIndeed. I was rather shocked to hear a friend had be subpoenaed for a DNA swab based on phone tracking data, along with a handful of other men, in connection with a rape case that happened early in the morning (so few phones in the area). The idea was two-fold a) rule out suspects, and b) (presumably) get in touch with potential witnesses. While everyone wants the guilty party to get caught, I'm unsure what options one would have about refusing such a swab. In theory that swab wouldn't be held on file (but who can know if there is a secret backup of such data -- we don't have adequate oversight in Norway either).
- sliverstorm 13y agoI'm not aware of any legal precedent under which you can refuse to cooperate with an ongoing police investigation, except where such investigation would violate your basic rights (e.g. Bill of Rights in the USA) In the USA you'd probably have to contend it is either unreasonable search and/or seizure, which would be a difficult case to make. Edit: Looks like the SCOTUS ruled on DNA testing & the Fourth Amendment just last year.