5 ms·

I find this creepy, but I'm not sure I'm seeing what's so interesting about it. Various police departments within a discrete area of Virginia (and who, I'm sure

I find this creepy, but I'm not sure I'm seeing what's so interesting about it. Various police departments within a discrete area of Virginia (and who, I'm sure, often coordinate in other totally legitimate ways) are simply sharing information that they have obtained through supposedly legal processes. I for one am completely fine with law enforcement agencies sharing evidence that they have lawfully obtained (and they do this routinely with, e.g., the NCIS fingerprint database). That law enforcement agencies around the country do this with other information, including phone records, in so-called "fusion centers" was, I thought, already widely known. Is this somehow different? Of course, here, there is good reason to be concerned about the way that many of the records have been obtained, and certainly this revelation provides further illustration of the unsettling ways that law enforcement can use phone records. Accordingly, it provides further reason to scrutinize the original collection of those records. But is there reason to think that this sharing is illegal in itself?

DaFranker 12y ago
IANAL. Also I haven't read Virginia's code of law. However, in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for". Which means, while the gathering of the data may have been done legally, the archival and preservation of the data beyond their original purpose may be itself illegal, let alone sharing it, looking at it for reasons unrelated to the original cause, and using it for other purposes.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Ah! A very good point. Does anyone else know more about this than, apparently, I do? Edit: After a bit of Googling, it looks like this may be OK under Virginia Law. In short, it appears that the governing law is the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which provides an exception to retention and sharing restrictions for "criminal intelligence information." Here is a somewhat off-topic but informative opinion from the Virginia AG about retention and sharing of license plate reader information. http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.pdf http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.p...
  - DaFranker 12y ago
    Regarding the edit: Yes, but... (On the topic of "passive", always-on License Plate Reader data collection that is archived without looking at it "in case it's useful later"): > On these facts I conclude that the need for such data has not been "clearly established in advance," so as to conform to the applicable principle of information practice. [12] Its future value to any investigation of criminal activity is wholly speculative. Therefore, with no exemption applicable to it, the collection of LPR data in the passive manner does not comport with the Data Act's strictures and prohibitions, and may not lawfully be done. [13] To absorb this back into the whole phone records thing, here's the keypoints I gather from that: 1. Need to target specific data that is as constrained as possible given prior knowledge. E.g. If you already know someone spoke on the phone about a crime at X date and never spoke of it at any other date, you are only allowed to obtain and use the records of that date. 2. Need to be able to show reasonable belief _before collection_ that the collected data will be useful for an investigation and/or for intelligence on criminal activity. Knowing that a criminal uses a phone is not sufficient cause to collect phone records - it must be demonstrable before collection that those particular phone records might contain information useful for identifying criminal activity or for ongoing investigations. 3. Data that is mass-collected for purposes of finding a specific information (e.g. searching for a license plate by processing every car that passes through X intersection) may be kept and shared only until the target information is located and the objectives met. 4. Every data collection must have a specific purpose and clear boundaries. Collecting records "to find people who issue death threats"? NOT OKAY. Collecting records "to find this particular issuance of a death threat"? OKAY. In other, techier words, there must be a deliverable. If the goal of a data collection is open-ended, or could take decades, then you must have a specific warrant associated to that data collection, and the data must be discarded once the warrant expires and/or the investigation concludes. This is pretty much my reading of it given cursory scanning of an abstract of the GDCDPA, prior knowledge on legal interpretations for "criminal intelligence information" (an extremely important phrase), and the A.G. advisory linked in parent.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I think this is all correct. But on my admittedly cursory reading of the Wired article, I didn't see any clear indication that the police departments involved have violated any of these restrictions. Of course, this is mostly for lack of detail. There are lots of areas where a violation could have occurred.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. It's not unusual to hear of cases being solved through matches with a fingerprint or DNA database (obviously problematic for civil liberties), and I don't think there's a bright-line standard for sharing of legally obtained evidence. I would like it if there was, but are you sure that you're not projecting your view of how things should work onto how they actually do? Can you offer some support for your claim?
  - DaFranker 12y ago
    My claim is that the above terms and concepts, in a legal courtroom, are not automatically equal, and a judge may or may not rule completely differently on a case whenever any one of those factors change. Notice, if you read correctly, that I didn't make any particular judgment as to whether or not I think it's legal or not, or whether I think it should be legal or not. My intent was simply in pointing out that the commenter's assumptions and logical deductions were unsound as far as a judge looking at a court case might be concerned.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Reading correctly, the commenter you replied to posed a question rather than stating any assumptions. You said 'in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for".' So you seem to be claiming that these are distinct legal categories which affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. I don't think this is true; as far as I am aware, prosecutors and police can freely share information collected in different cases as long as that evidence is all disclosed to the defendant prior to trial (and early enough for the defense to prepare or seek a continuance etc.). For example, it's legal (per the Supreme Court) to take DNA swabs from arrestees without a warrant even if no charges are brought, and all such DNA evidence is by default loaded into a national database known as CODIS. Your DNA data, according to a majority of the Supreme Court can legally be archived, looked at whenever law enforcement wants, shared, and used for other purposes than that which it was originally obtained for. http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html So again I ask, do you have something to back up your claim about things being different in 'most american states' or were you just saying you didn't think it worked that way?
EthanHeilman 12y ago
Let's say a criminal manages to dump all the emails from 2% of gmail accounts, the criminal is caught and the hard drives containing these emails are legally seized as evidence. * Do the police have a right, legal or ethical, to read these emails? * Do they have a right to share these emails? * Should these emails be purged from police records after the case has gone to trial?
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  That's an interesting hypothetical, but I'm not sure I see how it bears too closely on this scenario which, as I understand it, deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. I get that these records will include certain information about third parties (namely, that they called or were called by person x), but this seems a far cry from "all the emails from 2% of gmail accounts."
  - DaFranker 12y ago
    > deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. Hint: It doesn't.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Ok...what else does it deal with?
      - DaFranker 12y ago
        Any data on any seized smartphones. Where could a seized smartphone, obtained completely legally, come from? Well, for starters, let's say you've got a robbery ring of people snatching iPhones in public places. Police track them, raid their meeting point, and proclaim this glorious bust with 67 arrests related to the nefarious criminal snatcher ring. What happens to the phones present onsite during the raid? Seized. So they now have 300 seized smartphones, acquired legally. What do you think they do with them? Open 'em up, check the data, put it on the Fusion, of course! I mean, it's intelligence on the kinds of data criminals keep with them, so it's fair game, right? (Hint: Nope. But some police officers really do think this way.) What's more... maybe some of these phones were already "cleaned out" by the snatcher ring, and maybe some weren't. Time for a subpoena to the phone carriers to know which phones belonged to whom! And, well, while we're at it, it might be useful to know if any of these phones actually belonged to some of the snatchers themselves, maybe it'll lead us to their contacts and to more of their affiliates. This is still criminal activity intelligence, right? So let's also get all the phone records and contacts and calling history for all the previous numbers and owners of all of these phones. See how quickly this stuff escalates? And how easy it is for any officer or investigator to get carried away and justify it to anyone who asks? (Note: I'm not saying this happened. It's a thought experiment.)
DasIch 12y ago
The problem with sharing such information in general, is that it becomes difficult or even impossible to restrict access or delete it in the future. Juvenile cases might be an example where you may want to do that.

DaFranker 12y ago

IANAL. Also I haven't read Virginia's code of law. However, in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for". Which means, while the gathering of the data may have been done legally, the archival and preservation of the data beyond their original purpose may be itself illegal, let alone sharing it, looking at it for reasons unrelated to the original cause, and using it for other purposes.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Ah! A very good point. Does anyone else know more about this than, apparently, I do? Edit: After a bit of Googling, it looks like this may be OK under Virginia Law. In short, it appears that the governing law is the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which provides an exception to retention and sharing restrictions for "criminal intelligence information." Here is a somewhat off-topic but informative opinion from the Virginia AG about retention and sharing of license plate reader information. http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.pdf http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.p...
- DaFranker 12y ago
  Regarding the edit: Yes, but... (On the topic of "passive", always-on License Plate Reader data collection that is archived without looking at it "in case it's useful later"): > On these facts I conclude that the need for such data has not been "clearly established in advance," so as to conform to the applicable principle of information practice. [12] Its future value to any investigation of criminal activity is wholly speculative. Therefore, with no exemption applicable to it, the collection of LPR data in the passive manner does not comport with the Data Act's strictures and prohibitions, and may not lawfully be done. [13] To absorb this back into the whole phone records thing, here's the keypoints I gather from that: 1. Need to target specific data that is as constrained as possible given prior knowledge. E.g. If you already know someone spoke on the phone about a crime at X date and never spoke of it at any other date, you are only allowed to obtain and use the records of that date. 2. Need to be able to show reasonable belief _before collection_ that the collected data will be useful for an investigation and/or for intelligence on criminal activity. Knowing that a criminal uses a phone is not sufficient cause to collect phone records - it must be demonstrable before collection that those particular phone records might contain information useful for identifying criminal activity or for ongoing investigations. 3. Data that is mass-collected for purposes of finding a specific information (e.g. searching for a license plate by processing every car that passes through X intersection) may be kept and shared only until the target information is located and the objectives met. 4. Every data collection must have a specific purpose and clear boundaries. Collecting records "to find people who issue death threats"? NOT OKAY. Collecting records "to find this particular issuance of a death threat"? OKAY. In other, techier words, there must be a deliverable. If the goal of a data collection is open-ended, or could take decades, then you must have a specific warrant associated to that data collection, and the data must be discarded once the warrant expires and/or the investigation concludes. This is pretty much my reading of it given cursory scanning of an abstract of the GDCDPA, prior knowledge on legal interpretations for "criminal intelligence information" (an extremely important phrase), and the A.G. advisory linked in parent.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I think this is all correct. But on my admittedly cursory reading of the Wired article, I didn't see any clear indication that the police departments involved have violated any of these restrictions. Of course, this is mostly for lack of detail. There are lots of areas where a violation could have occurred.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
I'm not so sure about that. It's not unusual to hear of cases being solved through matches with a fingerprint or DNA database (obviously problematic for civil liberties), and I don't think there's a bright-line standard for sharing of legally obtained evidence. I would like it if there was, but are you sure that you're not projecting your view of how things should work onto how they actually do? Can you offer some support for your claim?
- DaFranker 12y ago
  My claim is that the above terms and concepts, in a legal courtroom, are not automatically equal, and a judge may or may not rule completely differently on a case whenever any one of those factors change. Notice, if you read correctly, that I didn't make any particular judgment as to whether or not I think it's legal or not, or whether I think it should be legal or not. My intent was simply in pointing out that the commenter's assumptions and logical deductions were unsound as far as a judge looking at a court case might be concerned.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Reading correctly, the commenter you replied to posed a question rather than stating any assumptions. You said 'in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for".' So you seem to be claiming that these are distinct legal categories which affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. I don't think this is true; as far as I am aware, prosecutors and police can freely share information collected in different cases as long as that evidence is all disclosed to the defendant prior to trial (and early enough for the defense to prepare or seek a continuance etc.). For example, it's legal (per the Supreme Court) to take DNA swabs from arrestees without a warrant even if no charges are brought, and all such DNA evidence is by default loaded into a national database known as CODIS. Your DNA data, according to a majority of the Supreme Court can legally be archived, looked at whenever law enforcement wants, shared, and used for other purposes than that which it was originally obtained for. http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html So again I ask, do you have something to back up your claim about things being different in 'most american states' or were you just saying you didn't think it worked that way?

EthanHeilman 12y ago

Let's say a criminal manages to dump all the emails from 2% of gmail accounts, the criminal is caught and the hard drives containing these emails are legally seized as evidence. * Do the police have a right, legal or ethical, to read these emails? * Do they have a right to share these emails? * Should these emails be purged from police records after the case has gone to trial?

pdabbadabba 12y ago
That's an interesting hypothetical, but I'm not sure I see how it bears too closely on this scenario which, as I understand it, deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. I get that these records will include certain information about third parties (namely, that they called or were called by person x), but this seems a far cry from "all the emails from 2% of gmail accounts."
- DaFranker 12y ago
  > deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. Hint: It doesn't.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Ok...what else does it deal with?
    - DaFranker 12y ago
      Any data on any seized smartphones. Where could a seized smartphone, obtained completely legally, come from? Well, for starters, let's say you've got a robbery ring of people snatching iPhones in public places. Police track them, raid their meeting point, and proclaim this glorious bust with 67 arrests related to the nefarious criminal snatcher ring. What happens to the phones present onsite during the raid? Seized. So they now have 300 seized smartphones, acquired legally. What do you think they do with them? Open 'em up, check the data, put it on the Fusion, of course! I mean, it's intelligence on the kinds of data criminals keep with them, so it's fair game, right? (Hint: Nope. But some police officers really do think this way.) What's more... maybe some of these phones were already "cleaned out" by the snatcher ring, and maybe some weren't. Time for a subpoena to the phone carriers to know which phones belonged to whom! And, well, while we're at it, it might be useful to know if any of these phones actually belonged to some of the snatchers themselves, maybe it'll lead us to their contacts and to more of their affiliates. This is still criminal activity intelligence, right? So let's also get all the phone records and contacts and calling history for all the previous numbers and owners of all of these phones. See how quickly this stuff escalates? And how easy it is for any officer or investigator to get carried away and justify it to anyone who asks? (Note: I'm not saying this happened. It's a thought experiment.)

DasIch 12y ago

The problem with sharing such information in general, is that it becomes difficult or even impossible to restrict access or delete it in the future. Juvenile cases might be an example where you may want to do that.